header-logo header-logo

13 December 2012
Issue: 7542 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Whiplash backlash

Injured will have to go “head to head” in court

The small-claims threshold for whiplash and road-traffic claims could be raised from £1,000 to £5,000, under Ministry of Justice (MoJ) proposals to curb the number of fraudulent claims. The MoJ consultation, Reducing the Number and Costs of Whiplash Claims, also proposes setting up independent medical panels to determine whether claims are genuine.

According to James Dalton, head of motor and liability insurance at the Association of British Insurers, 1,500 whiplash claims are made each day, adding £90 to the average annual motor insurance premium. He says: “More effective diagnosis of whiplash will help genuine claimants get paid out quickly and reduce the scope for fraud.”

However, Iain Stark, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, says the proposals “could spell disaster for both consumers and the legal profession. Access to justice will be the ultimate victim. I foresee a whole new unregulated industry being created to handle claims below £5,000. Furthermore, the courts will be flooded with litigants in person, which will put huge strain on their already limited resources”. He adds: “It is said that we all pay an extra £90 on our insurance because of whiplash claims and so the government must hold insurers to account if premiums do not fall as a result. And maybe the authorities should do more to prosecute those bringing fraudulent claims.”

Claimant lawyers also oppose the plans. Mark Grover, chief executive of personal injury firm Antony Hodari & Co, says: “Though fraud is a problem, the vast majority of claims are legitimate; raising the small-claims limit will just mean that an injured person will have to go head to head in court against the insurer’s lawyer. How many of us would want to do that?”

Issue: 7542 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll