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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll