header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 October 2011 / Deborah Evans
Issue: 7487 / Categories: Opinion , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Too high a price to pay?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Deborah Evans takes a critical look at the proposals in the Legal Aid Bill

In a just and moral society, an uninhibited access to justice should be available to all people, regardless of their means. It is one of the most important cornerstones of a modern civilisation. This is why many members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) are gravely worried about proposals in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

The proposals to restrict conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and to cut legal aid for victims of clinical negligence have some unjust consequences for injured people.

It is deeply unfair for victims to be made to use part of their damages to meet legal costs. Damages are intended to help compensate people for their pain and suffering. Victims do not choose to be injured. They should not pay for someone else’s mistake. Damages are not “winnings”—money does not “make it better” but it does help a victim live with the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll