header-logo header-logo

23 July 2014
Issue: 7616 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Injury lawyers up in arms

Warning over motor insurance strike-out proposals

Plans to give courts new powers to strike out motor insurance cases with “phantom passengers” and “fundamentally dishonest claims” have been condemned by personal injury lawyers.

According to a fact sheet accompanying the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, cl 45 provides that where the claimant is entitled to damages but the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has been “fundamentally dishonest” in relation to the claim as a whole then it must dismiss the entire claim, except where the claimant would suffer “substantial injustice” as a result.The court would also be required to record the damages award that would have been made but for the dishonesty, and to award costs against the claimant not exceeding that award.

Legal consultant Nicholas Bevan says: “Here we go again, a government determined to shoot from the hip and legislate over issues it does not understand, this time at the behest of the commercial interests of insurers and without a shred of any independently corroborated evidence to substantiate the insurers’ claims that fraud is increasing.”

A spokesman for the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers says: “To introduce the power for blanket dismissal in this way will lead to three things: an increase in spurious allegations of fraud and exaggeration by insurers; an increase in satellite litigation, and an increase in the number of genuine claimants who either underplay their symptoms or who fail to bring valid cases at all, for fear of being falsely accused. 

“If it can be proved to a criminal standard that an entire claim is fraudulent, there is no doubt that it should be thrown out...The law is rarely black and white, which is why the courts already have the power to use discretion to deal with alleged exaggeration.”

 

Issue: 7616 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
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