Jackson proposes sweeping reforms to cut litigation costs

Readers' comments (28)

• Anonymous | 16-Jan-2010 5:08 pm

  Claimant's have had it easy for too long, APIL and all the claimant firms are up in arms for one reason, they would end up getting less money under these proposals, thats what it comes down too.
  PI and credit hire litigation are the only areas of law where the claimant doesn't have to pay anything, they get everything for nothing. If they have to pay something then the fraudsters will be put off making their LVI claims and claiming their whole family were in the car when they weren't.
  If there is a genuine claim (as in most Cat PI claims) then the claimant won't be at a disadvantage having to pay costs as Jackson recommended generals would be increased by 10% to pay the associated costs, it wouldn't come out of the specials so any care claims and adaptations etc would not be touched so the claimant wouldn't be at a disadvantage.
  Some people have complained about insurers not making good offers, that was taken into account in the review they have just chosen not to mention that Jackson recommended that if the claimant beats the defendant's pt 36 offer then all damages awarded would be increased by 10% and it will ALL go to the claimant, as I mentioned the claimant firms (too many to mention here) only want one thing, money, and this sees them getting less. f they cared about their clients then they would work effectively to settle claims without spiralling costs and keep their client's interests at heart.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Stephen Wood, Solicitor, Hoben Johnson Solicitors, | 17-Jan-2010 3:41 am

  The report is very pro-Defendants/Defendants' insurance companies.
  
  The abolition of recoverable success fees and ATE insurance premiums from unsuccessful Defendants will certainly deter Claimants in relatively minor Fast-Track value claims from issuing Court proceedings, where liability is disputed. This can only encourage Defendants to deny liability in such cases.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 17-Jan-2010 9:55 pm

  The current system has led to a massive compensation culture of no benefit to society. If claims farmers are toast in the future - good news
  Most of vexatious litigation is minor PI injuries where everyone down the pub is encouraged to have a stiff neck after a minor bump (or in some cases no accident). Scrapping referal fees yes, non recovery of ATE Insurance - yes. Damages to the genuinely injured - yes Nothing to the parasites yes, yes ,yes

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Robert Rocker | 17-Jan-2010 10:52 pm

  Claimant solicitors who properly risk assess and try to run genuninely viable claims will take issue with the suggestion that the do not run their claims efficiently. Insurers not complying with the protocol is a major factor in costs increase. Also, given that tthe claimant only has cause to seek legal assistance and insurance protection because he/she has been injured by another, why then should the wrongdoer/insurer not have to reimburse his/her necessary legal expenditure?

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Get over it | 18-Jan-2010 6:19 am

  Wonderful comments. Like the banking crisis, an industry (claimant PI and their ATE insurers, farmers and funders) shows that any apparently simple deregulation will be ruthlessly exploited for profit to the extent that it becomes absurd. The lamentations here have nothing to do with concerns about access to justice and everything to do with the restrictions to be imposed on thebeneficiaries of a licence to print money. If you had really cared about the claimants, then this would not have happened. I am sure there are exceptions, but they are certainly not the majority. What amazes me is that some of the comments show the sheer scale of the self-delusion. I am sure Sir Fred still protests his innocence. Wait, here come the lobbying companies. Another noble industry.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• john walton | 20-Jan-2010 8:04 pm

  This will mean PI firms asking for deposits, dispursment fees and investigation costs up front - the poor will suffer the most.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Steve Vickers | 22-Jan-2010 7:08 pm

  The report does seem to be a shopping list for the liability insurers and that those who have got their message across best. There seems scant regard to how much damages are going to have to increase which would negate the savings of the liability insurers.
  If those same insurers and NHSLA properly staffed their claims departments they would save a fortune in the current regime but then claims departments are a cost rather than those people doing the marketing in head office.... It would also be good if the liability insurers charged a premium which reflected the costs of claims and did more in risk assessment cutting down on incidents in the first place rather than spending so much money on lobbying.
  Wouldn't it be nice if the law had a period of stability after years of reforms which are then reformed in turn.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 19-Apr-2011 1:34 pm

  Im personally glad. Hopefully this will have an impact on the ridiculous costs claimed by personal injury practicioners these days.
  
  I've seen many cases where costs are claimed at £20k upwards and the claim itself is worth less than 5k.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment