Whiplash & Small Claims - this time it's for real....

In November 2015 the former Chancellor, George Osborne announced plans the abolish the right to damages for whiplash injuries and to raise the Small Claims limit in Personal Injury Claims. The effect of the latter is to remove the right of victims of accidents to recover legal costs from insurers. 

This would leave most victims without legal representation against insurers who have massive resources available to them – David v Goliath without the slingshot!

A few weeks ago it seemed that these draconian proposals were off the agenda for now –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/osbornes-whiplash-proposals-gone-for.html

I predicted then that the insurance industry would not leave things there. Why would it? Insurers have been given all that they’ve asked for from a very compliant Conservative Government and their friends in the media.

It is no great surprise therefore to see the plans revived with a vengeance. It was announced yesterday that the MOJ is consulting on the increase in the small claims limit and planning to cap the levels of damages for whiplash. According to ITV news the Lord Chancellor Liz Truss talked of a ‘rampant compensation culture’. There is also familiar rhetoric about clamping down on fraud and saving billions in insurance premiums.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-17/government-unveils-crackdown-on-bogus-whiplash-claims/

The so called compensation culture is a mythical being created to feed these attacks. The evidence is that there has been a steady reduction in the number of claims and hardly any evidence of fraud –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/why-have-our-government-got-it-in-for.html

The consultation period is just a few weeks and is calculated to close immediately after the Christmas break.  This reduces the chances of an effective response and suggests that Ms Truss is intent in giving this gift to insurance companies regardless of any opposition.  The chances of all of this leading to any significant reduction in the cost of motor insurance are equally mythical –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/insurance-premiums-and-other-fantastic.html

These plans will have drastic consequences –

Victims will either act for themselves or be deterred from claiming at all

All injury claims will be affected, not just whiplash

Law Firms across the country will close leading to hundreds of job losses

Insurers’ profits will rise

This is a very disturbing day for us all.

Post Script

I have just read the Consultation Paper over lunch. It is worth a read. The proposals are not quite as draconian as the press reports and there are options for discussion. But I suspect the MOJ spin reflects their intentions.

What is notable is that at Page 78 of 78 pages of narrative  is the following -

'We would also welcome views from respondents on the assumption in the IA that 85% of insurers savings will be passed onto consumers' Just in case you happen to blink and miss it!

Are we seeing the demise of our civil courts?

I have written before about the problems suffered by all parties to litigation following the drastic increases in court fees in 2015 –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/court-fees-2-what-are-we-getting-for.html

It certainly appears that the quality of the service offered by our courts has declined in direct proportion to the increase in fees. Despite the availability of remission of fees in some cases there is no doubt that this is having a major impact. In 2013 the fee for starting an action for damages of £200k was £1250.00. This is now £10,000.00.

Lawyers who pursue actions for ordinary citizens of average means, usually pay the fees on behalf of their clients. Increases of this magnitude seriously impact the commercial viability of this service.

The effect of all of this is that it is that victims of accidents and medical negligence will find it harder and harder to pursue their disputes through the courts. Those suffering the most severe injuries are the worst affected.

It is not surprising therefore that lawyers for claimants and defendants are actively considering alternatives. Litigation Futures reported yesterday on an initiative from Liverpool based QC, Bill Braithwaite –

http://www.litigationfutures.com/news/replace-judges-neutral-facilitators-handle-major-personal-injury-cases-says-qc

Braithwaite advocates the use of ‘neutral facilitators’ to resolve disputes in major personal injury cases. He suggests that such facilitator can be given such powers as are agreed by the parties – from mediation to full decision making on all issues. This is an interesting idea but one which would require much collaboration on both sides.

This follows on from last year’s launch of the Personal Injury arbitration service –

http://www.litigationfutures.com/news/personal-injury-arbitration-service-aims-break-dam

In medical negligence cases there are proposals for a compensation scheme for victims of birth injuries –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/compensation-scheme-for-birth-injuries.html

Victims are never looking for litigation. They are looking for answers, for resolution and for appropriate levels of damages.

I suspect that there will be more such initiatives and referring disputes to the court will eventually become exceptional.

There are however some concerns. Will we ever see the levels of co-operation required to make them work? Only last month lawyers who help victims of medical negligence were called ‘vultures’ and ‘greedy ambulance chasers’. Lawyers who help victims of accidents are regularly accused of feeding a mythical ‘compensation culture’.  I think much bridge building will be needed if these alternatives are to succeed.

On the other hand, resorting to our civil courts will become increasingly prohibitive. So some alternative will be the only way of securing justice for those who cannot afford to pay the eye watering fees.

Will our civil courts then become a resource available only to the wealthy?

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/how-other-half-litigates.html

The Brexit Judgment is all about the Supremacy of our elected Parliament

It seems that the whole world is commenting on yesterday’s decision of the High Court in relation to Brexit. In fact some press reporting has verged on the hysterical.

We need to make one thing clear from the start. This is not a judgment on Brexit itself. It is a judgment on what powers the government has, to make decisions in relation to Article 50 without referring to Parliament. The Lord Chief Justice could not have made this any clearer -

'It deserves emphasis at the outset that the court in these proceedings is only dealing with a pure question of law. Nothing we say has any bearing on the question of the merits or demerits of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union' . 

I think everybody has now heard of Article 50. This is the process that begins our exit from the EU. In very simplified terms the court decided yesterday that the process cannot be triggered by the Government. It has to be done by Parliament. It is a purely legal point. It has nothing to do with the pros and cons of Brexit.

The Government argued that it could start the process without going to Parliament because of 'Royal Prerogative'. These are words that most Law Students forget shortly after finishing their degree. They rarely raise their head in real life. Royal Prerogative describes decisions which the monarch of the day could make without having to refer back to parliament. It is a concept that goes back to the 14^th Century and the days of power struggles between the monarch and the barons.

   

Over time those powers have devolved to the government ministers. The powers are sometimes used in foreign affairs and might include the making of treaties with other nations. For those who are particularly interested there is a useful discussion in Wikipedia –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

This is important in relation to yesterday’s decision. When we entered the European Union in the 1970s Parliament enacted the European Communities Act 1972.  If we want to exit the Union that Act has to be repealed. The government’s case was that it must have been Parliament’s intention in 1972 to give any future government power, by way of royal prerogative, the power to cancel any treaties relating to our membership. This argument was very firmly rejected by the Court.

The overriding point is that Parliament is sovereign. The 1972 Act was passed by Parliament. There is nothing in that Act to say that a future government can cancel it. Only Parliament can repeal an Act that it has passed. The Lord Chief Justice said

‘The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the government of the day cannot by exercise of Royal Prerogative override legislation enacted by Parliament.’

The government argued that this case was different. It argued that it had the legal power to trigger Article 50 because this is all about foreign relations and therefore within the Prerogative. This again was rejected. It is self evident that laws enacted since we joined the EU have become part domestic law. So as soon as Article 50 is triggered, UK laws will be affected. This is not just about foreign affairs but will fundamentally change our laws. Those powers are for Parliament and not the government.  

The case will now go to the Supreme Court – possibly before all 11 judges. I would be very surprised if their decision is any different. There is nothing in either the 1972 Act or even the Referendum Act of 2015 that gives Mrs May and her ministers powers to cancel an Act of Parliament. Many of us have been saying this since June –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/brexit-and-parliament-will-it-ever.html

This is not a battle between the courts and Parliament. In fact it confirms that nobody – neither judges nor the government can override the supremacy of Parliament. In fact it is part of our historical protections. The courts will not allow any government to act beyond its powers. If it wants to change the law it can legislate and to do that it has to go through the correct process.

So where does this leave Brexit?

I cannot imagine that Parliament will try and cancel the result of the referendum. A majority of voters chose Brexit. It would certainly trigger a major constitutional crisis if that outcome was blocked altogether. Indeed many MPs who supported Remain have said that they will respect the will of the people.

What it does mean is that the process will have to be carefully examined by Parliament. Brexit minister Davis Davies has acknowledged that this would mean a new Act of Parliament –

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37863544

This might slow the formal process but it will ensure that the elected members of parliament will have the final say on the detail of the exit.

It is easy to forget that this was something that was at the heart of the Leave campaign i.e. the recovery of the supremacy of our parliament. 

The High Court has confirmed this.

Yesterday’s judgment should be welcomed by both sides of the debate itself. It is not a decision about the rights or wrongs of Brexit. It is a clear line in the sand about what powers Ministers have to disregard those elected by the people.

Reflecting on 25 years as a litigator!

Today, I am celebrating 25 years at EAD.

I joined on 1^st November 1991 following the take-over of his previous firm Ashby Cornforth & Co.

So this has got me thinking how things have changed.

Some developments have certainly been a good thing. Growing a moustache for charity rather than fashion must be positive!

In those days you had a telephone with a dial. It was attached to the wall and you were lucky to speak to a client directly unless you called after work. There were a few very early mobile phones around but you needed a trolley to carry them and they could certainly have been a murder weapon on Cluedo. 

There was a relatively new thing called a fax which some modern thinking lawyers were starting to use. 

If you needed to go to court you had to get in the car and drive there, unless you were close enough to walk. There was no such thing as a telephone hearing or any other sort of conference call for that matter. Neither was there any such thing as a costs budget, case management or Mitchell. In fact Directions were relatively sparse and the first you saw of your opponents’ evidence was when you turned up at court. The thought of experts actually having a discussion was a thing or horror.

Today you can handle a litigation caseload and hardly ever leave your desk. This makes the practice of law quicker but less sociable. You heard the gossip while waiting for your hearing; a sort of live Twitter!

One thing we did take for granted was Access to Justice. There was something called a Green Form – largely due to it being a form that was green. This entitled a person of limited means to half an hour’s advice on any matter of law! You could give helpful initial advice and then extend the limit to take things further or obtain an expert report. Back then, I did hundreds of disrepair claims against local authorities. You could use the Green Form to get a surveyor’s report and then apply for full legal aid. 

Legal aid? Remember that? Who would have thought that Access to Justice would become a waste land?

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/access-to-justice-waste-land.html

Many accident claims were run on spec. It was a sort of unofficial conditional fee arrangement where you only got paid if you won. Politicians later realised that this could become the norm and the only way to represent victims of accidents. A Labour government removed legal aid for these cases. They created a world where we had no work on this basis and then attacked us for being ‘no win no fee lawyers’. 

It is also worth noting that relationships between lawyers and insurers were very different. We regularly spoke to each other. Every few weeks I would be visited by someone from the Municipal Mutual, Guardian Royal Exchange, Iron Trades or Sun Alliance. Over coffee and much conversation about football we would settle ten or more cases. Nobody has heard of the ABI!

So much has changed. Some for the better some for the worse. Litigation is faster, smoother and far more expensive.

Access to Justice is an endangered species and I hope that it still exists in 25 years time…