High Court rejects challenge from claimant lawyers over personal injury fee cuts
The High Court has thrown out a challenge to the new fixed costs structure for personal injury claims, after the Government pushed through reforms which are set to have a significant impact on the earnings of law firms handling employers' liability, public liability and motor claims. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) and the Motor Accident Solicitors Society (MASS) contested a decision made by the Ministry of Justice to significantly reduce the fees recoverable by lawyers for cases managed through the road traffic accident (RTA) Portal, the online system via which low value personal injury claims are processed.
March 04, 2013 at 07:37 AM
3 minute read
The High Court has thrown out a challenge to the new fixed costs structure for personal injury claims, after the Government pushed through reforms which are set to have a significant impact on the earnings of law firms handling employers' liability, public liability and motor claims.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) and the Motor Accident Solicitors Society (MASS) contested a decision made by the Ministry of Justice to significantly reduce the fees recoverable by lawyers for cases managed through the road traffic accident (RTA) Portal, the online system via which low value personal injury claims are processed.
Following a period of consultation, the Government last week confirmed that from the end of April, the basic RTA Portal fee – which covers claims up to £10,000 – will be cut from £1,200 to £500.
Both APIL and MASS argued that claimant representatives were not invited to the Prime Minister's insurance summit on 14 February last year, when they believe the decision to amend the fees structure was taken.
However, Lord Justice Elias told the court the Government had settled on the changes in 2011 and was free to consult with parties of its own choosing.
In a statement, APIL said: "As the Government has now decided to slash lawyers' fees in the road traffic accident claims process, many people will be left on their own to negotiate with insurers for fair and proper compensation for their injuries. The vast majority of injured people have no knowledge of what their injuries are 'worth' in terms of damages, so such negotiations will inevitably be biased in favour of the insurers.
"Many vulnerable victims of injury will now find it impossible to obtain independent legal representation as a result of [this] bitterly disappointing judgment."
The RTA Portal was originally set up to enable claimant and defendant representatives to exchange information and documents required to process low value personal injury claims quickly and efficiently.
The value threshold of claims handled by the RTA Portal will in July be raised from £10,000 to £25,000, with cases in this higher bracket incurring a fixed cost of £800.
At the same time, the portal is set to be renamed Claims Portal and will cover employer's liability and public liability claims for the first time, with basic costs set at £900 and upper costs £1,600.
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: "I'm pleased the independent judicial review has dismissed this challenge. Our proposals, along with our wider reforms, are intended to bring more balance to the civil claims system, make lawyers' costs proportionate and in turn create an environment where insurers can pass on savings to their customers through lower premiums."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCovington Swipes Mishcon Insurance Disputes Head for New Practice Launch in London
3 minute readAsia Pacific Hires: Global Firms Kick Off Q4 with Flurry of Team Hires Across the Region
10 minute readCorporatizing Law: How This Law Firm Leader Plans to Build a Big Legal Business
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250