Report this comment to a moderator

Jackson review reviewed

Jackson states this should save people millions and Jack Straw has called this a remarkable piece of work. You can say that again, its full to the brim of contradicting statements. So lets not charge the insurers (who if paying is clearly the wrongdoer). I hear champagne glasses clinking!. Lets however take a significant cut of the victims money. Hold on! lets limit the cut it to 25% but then lets increase the awards by 10% so the actual money taken out of the damages is greater. How's that helping? And if you withdraw success fees but replace it with 10% more damages, where's the saving? Is this change for the sake of change?. Its does not end there, lets make the Claimant pay (the insurers of course) higher premiums for homeowners legal insurance to cover a claim that might never happened and what about the Claimant's who cannot afford a home or extra insurance. Sorry, but a fail to see the point and do not consider this enhancing 'Access to Justice'.

14-Jan-2010

10:22 pm