Writing for NLJ, Professor Dominic Regan, of City University, says: ‘It now appears that ADR will be abandoned on account of expense… So, absent a mediator, there is palpable concern that a claimant who receives an offer will not have a clue about whether to accept it.’
His last NLJ column, also on the reforms, ‘provoked an outpouring [from judges], the likes of which I have not experienced in 30 years’, he said.
The judges were concerned road traffic accident (RTA) claims would cause a ‘logjam’, overwhelming District Judges with work, he said. One judge told Prof Regan they were ‘already having nightmares about paid McKenzie Friends pitching up’.
Insurance lawyer Ian Davies, partner, Kennedys Law, said: ‘It is clear that the decision to move away from the ADR solution will put further pressure on the court system.
Gordon Dalyell, president, Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said the lack of provision for ADR was ‘just not good enough’.
‘Failure to include an effective and fair way of resolving conflict in the new portal pits the inexperienced individual against the seasoned insurer without a safety net, hoping everything will go without a hitch,’ he said.
‘It assumes that the injured person will simply accept without question what the insurer says has happened, who is at fault, and how much compensation is fair. Or, if the injured person refuses to accept what he’s told, it is assumed he will be able to take his case to the small claims court.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
