The very idea of a local or central Government consultation, is usually met with a cynical tut, a roll of the eyes and the question: whether it is a genuine consultation or a fait accompli? However, in what will doubtless be seen as a shock move to the personal injury and credit hire sectors, the Ministry of Justice have recently responded to a 5 year old consultation process with the ditching of plans for further whiplash reforms. See Part 2 of the Government Response to: Reforming the Soft Tissue Injury (‘whiplash’) Claims.
Despite a chorus of objections, overwhelmingly from the claimant sector, May 2021 saw the implementation Part 1 (raised financial value limit for the Small Claims Track and introduction of fixed tariffs for compensation for RTA whiplash claims) of what was anticipated to have been only the first of inevitably further whiplash reforms to come. Part 2 was wider in scope, including proposed reform in the areas of credit hire and rehabilitation arrangements, referrals and qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS). However, in its response to the Consultation, the MOJ have revealed that, whilst it will continue to monitor the situation; it will allow the market to deal with issues around fraud and claims costs and not push ahead with proposals for reform of:
In the run up to and following Part 1, it will have been observed that there has been a repositioning of particularly the legal sector, with sales, mergers and some departing the market. The MOJ jettisoning of the Part 2 proposed reforms will likely be perceived as a welcome turn of the books particularly to the claims industry, which in consequence will lead to PI, credit hire and rehabilitation claims to defend against.
1CL has a team of experienced civil fraud practitioners and are one of only three London sets appointed to the Aviva panel.
This week we examine an unusual arbitration case involving (or did it?) a foreign limitation period; and another decision on the tension between open justice and protection of commercially sensitive information (we understand, by the way, that on 25th February the Court of Appeal will…
This week we look at two decisions, both of which will be of critical importance to practitioners in pursuance of contested litigation. In one, unusually, without prejudice correspondence was admissible in a case involving fundamental dishonesty; whilst in the other, the court reviewed the authorities…
Following a 5-day liability trial in the High Court in Manchester, the Claimant’s negligence and Human Rights Act claims were dismissed by HHJ Bird sitting as a Judge of the High Court. The Claimant was a Type 1 diabetic who suffered from a history of…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR