header-logo header-logo

02 February 2022
Issue: 7965 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Fixed costs for clinical negligence

Clinical negligence claimants seeking damages of £25,000 or less would only be able to recover limited costs, under government proposals

The Department of Health and Social Care launched its consultation, ‘Fixed recoverable costs in lower value clinical negligence claims’, this week. Under the proposals, a streamlined ‘twin-track’ process would operate with costs limited to £6,000 plus 20% of damages for ‘standard track’ and to £1,500 plus 10% of damages for ‘light track’ claims process. The amount of compensation recoverable would not be affected.

Claims could be excluded from the fixed costs scheme if three or more liability experts were required, multiple defendants (with different allegations against each defendant) were involved, the claim involved stillbirth or neonatal death, or the defendant raises limitation as an issue.

Health minister Maria Caulfield said the proposals aligned closely with work done by the Civil Justice Council, could save £454m over ten years, and aimed to lower the cost of claims and speed up the compensation process.

However, lawyers said the costs restrictions would act as a barrier to potential claimants.

Stephanie Prior, partner at Osbornes Law, said: ‘If these changes are brought in then I expect many specialist clinical negligence lawyers will not be able to take on these low value claims anymore.

‘While it is true that costs can spiral on cases this is generally because the NHS lawyers sometimes drag out cases for an inordinate amount of time, which inevitably has to be paid for.’

Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) representative Suzanne Trask said the proposed costs limits fell below recommendations from patient safety lawyers.

‘It is extremely disappointing that the starting point of these proposals puts a significant hurdle in the way of patients seeking the compensation they need to rebuild their lives after needless injury. Costs must allow for a proper investigation and fair resolution of a claim.’

Qamar Anwar, managing director of First4Lawyers, said: ‘It is true that legal costs have risen in recent years. However, this is only in line with the overall increase in all costs associated with medical negligence claims.’

The consultation closes on 24 April at 11.45pm.

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