subject: The Effect Of Kenneth Clarke's New Reforms On Injury Victims [print this page] Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke has unveiled a raft of changes to the law governing the cost of litigation in England and Wales, attacking 'cases which would never have even reached the courtroom door were it not for the fact that somebody else was paying.'
The proposed changes see a dramatic change in the manner by which personal injury cases are administered, with injury victims expected to pay their own legal fees even if they win their case, whereas under the old system this was claimed from the defendant.
This amount is 'capped' at 25%, but in the majority of compensation claims, which attract an award of relatively little value compared to some higher-end cases, this will represent a severe drop in what the claimant receives.
Say, for example, that somebody breaks their leg in a work accident and receives 2000 in compensation. Under the new system, they will have to pay their solicitor a quarter of that: 500, leaving him with 1500 so far.
Clarke says that damages should be raised by 10% to offset this. But this still only ups the final amount to 1650, leaving the claimant with a 17.5% drop in what they take home, a significant amount. This is essentially the same as deducting VAT from a person's payout. A payout that could conceivably be used to pay for rent, food, clothes, bills etc while the person is off work.
This demonstrates that there are many members of society who (along with those civil litigants who will be scuppered by the legal aid reforms, such as married couples seeking a divorce) who will see their opportunities to have access to justice greatly decreased. In addition to this, it is also feared that those who were in greatest need of legal help will be hit the hardest.
Clarke's reforms are obviously designed to save the UK's legal system money, but he risks taxing the poorest people the hardest. If the government does wish to save money, it would be advised to take a preventative approach.
Some companies or individuals that are facing the possibility of paying out on a claim decide that it is simpler and more cost-effective just to pay out rather than letting the case go to court, where costs would be even greater. This happens if they suspect the claim is weak or fraudulent.
We would argue that a greater screening of claims at an early stage to separate the genuine from the opportunistic, is what we really need. Otherwise we run the risk of taking even more from those who are already most vulnerable.
