header-logo header-logo

19 October 2016
Issue: 7719 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Change of plan on fixed costs?

CPRC meeting minutes reveal govt is rethinking clinical neglience claims proposals

The government is considering rowing back from plans for fixed recoverable costs for clinical negligence claims up to £100,000.

Instead, fixed costs would be introduced for claims up to £25,000.

The change of plan was revealed this week in minutes distributed from a July meeting of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC). Item 4 reports a change in policy at the Department of Health, which intends to consult in respect of claims up to £25,000 (accounting for about 60% of clinical negligence claims). 

Nina Ali, clinical negligence partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen, said: “At first glance this is of course a welcome change of policy. 

“However, unless there is a proper and effective consultation and ultimately acceptance that there are a number of case types that must be made exceptions of, this change of policy and playing with numbers is meaningless.”
Ali emphasised that it was important not to equate the complexity or the importance of a case with its financial value. Complex cases often fall below the £25,000 threshold, for example, those involving fatalities, human rights, the elderly and people with disabilities.

“Fatal cases can also involve inquests and human rights issues,” she said. “Where the deceased is a person with no earnings, the claim is inevitably going to be lower in strict financial terms than if they were a wealthy individual, for example, a company director in their 30s with dependents.”

Legal aid is not available for clinical injury claims, with the exception of birth injuries.

The Department of Health declined to comment but confirmed that it will be consulting on different thresholds for fixed costs.

The Department initially planned to introduce fixed costs up to £100,000. CPRC minutes from July 2015 show that the intended implementation date, if the plans were agreed, was October 2016. The Department was then exploring whether to consult on a limit of £250,000. It said legal costs were too high, at £260m or 22% of the total spend on clinical negligence in the year 2013/14. 

Issue: 7719 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll