Judges break ranks
Some senior costs Judges in the Senior Court Costs Office have voiced their concerns about the costs changed advocated by the much heralded Jackson Report
These Judges are at the front line of the personal injury costs debate, with many solicitors being pilloried for so-called “ambulance chasing”. Whilst we can understand the furore surrounding claims management companies, who do much of the marketing for personal injury claims (more because lawyers seem inherently averse to marketing), it is often forgotten that the no-win, no-fee claims system constitutes a risk for lawyers, and ultimately a service has been provided to many who would not otherwise have access to justice. The excesses in the system are perhaps more caused by the plethora of fraudulent claims, creating a huge drain on resources and increasing insurance premium=s for all.
Returning to the concerns of the 3 costs Judges, they particularly cited the fact that should the Jackson reforms be implemented, seemingly extremely likely, claimants who have suffered serious medical injuries may well end up losing thousands needed for their care because those costs will need to be paid by them to their lawyers and not by the defendants by way of the success fee.
The Judges also suggested that insurers and their representatives should also take a look at themselves in that, in their experience, defence handling of claims leaves much to be desired.
The Judges commented that “In some cases, the litigation is conducted with hostility, thereby requiring claimants to address each and every point” … and “In others, defendants delay, thereby causing unnecessary additional costs”.
The judges recommended standardising litigation insurance premiums wherever possible, reducing the success fee after an admission of liability and restricting the availability of CFAs to individuals.
