header-logo header-logo

29 August 2023
Issue: 8038 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Procedure & practice , Personal injury , Clinical negligence
printer mail-detail

APIL issues judicial challenge over fixed recoverable costs

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) issued judicial review proceedings last week against the Lord Chancellor over new rules to extend fixed recoverable costs.

APIL contends the government failed properly to consult on the new rules, due to come in on 1 October. It argues the rules lack clarity about when fixed costs might apply—the rules say clinical negligence claims valued between £25,000 and £100,000 should move to the intermediate track ‘if both breach of duty and causation have been admitted’, but do not specify at what stage those admissions must be made. If made late, a solicitor will not recoup enough to make the work viable, deterring them from taking on cases within this value bracket.

APIL’s challenge also covers provisions relating to vulnerable people, the exclusion of inquests, the restoration of companies to the Companies Register from the regime, and whether the rules infringe freedom of contract.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll