High Court deals LASPO blow to Grayling

Topics: Costs, fees and funding,Personal injury & clinical negligence,Courts business

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (7)
  • Save

Related images

  • Richard Stein
  • Richard Fox

Campaigners have won in a High Court challenge to the government’s plans to subject mesothelioma cases to the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act.

The Asbestos Victims’ Support Groups Forum UK had contested the decision of justice secretary Chris Grayling to remove an exemption for mesothelioma claims agreed during the act's passage through parliament.


In today’s judgment, The Honourable Mr Justice Williams said the issue was whether Grayling had conducted a ‘proper review’ of the likely effect of reforms on cancer sufferers.

‘I conclude that he did not,’ said Williams. ‘It is now for the lord chancellor to carry out a proper review of the likely effects of the LASPO reforms in whatever manner he concludes will permit him reasonably to achieve the required purpose.’

Mesothelioma cases were left out of new rules in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act in April 2013 which mean claimants can be charged up to 25% of their awarded damages to pay for success fees and after-the-event insurance. An amendment to the act places an obligation on the government to carry out and publish a full review of the effect of applying the new rules to mesothelioma sufferers.

The asbestos victims' groups had argued in court that no such review had taken place before the government announced last December that it would lift the exemption.

The government argued in court that the required review was carried out as part of the consultation ‘Reforming Mesothelioma Claims’ which took place between July and October 2013. The Association of British Insurers intervened into the court action in support of the government.

Richard Stein (pictured) from the human rights department at national firm Leigh Day, who brought the judicial review against the decision, said: ‘This government is seemingly intent on doing what it is told by the insurance industry against the best interests of those suffering from the negligent behaviour of the insured.

‘Today’s judgment should send a clear message to the government that it has to conform with the laws of the land and cannot ride roughshod over the interests of mesothelioma sufferers and their families to benefit the insurance industry.’

Tony Whitston, chair of the UK wide Forum of Asbestos Support Groups, called on the government to: 'see this judgment as an opportunity to take a new approach based on justice for victims and not the profits of big financial institutions’.

He added: ‘The old plans were rooted in a culture of secret deals with insurers and flawed consultations, which excluded the victims of asbestos. Now is the time for a change.’

In August the justice select committee of the House of Commons criticised the government over its approach to compensation for sufferers of mesothelioma and urged the coalition to hold a fresh consultation.

MPs also expressed their surprise at a document dated July 2012 called ‘Mesothelioma Heads of Agreement’ between the government and the ABI.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'Mesothelioma is an awful condition which can destroy lives in a frighteningly short amount of time and we want to help sufferers and their families. We are committed to finding the best way to get claims settled fairly and quickly. 

'It remains our view that the MoJ review of this issue was conducted fully and openly and we are disappointed with this judgment. We will now consider our next steps.'

Andy Slaughter, shadow justice minister, said the case marked a 'new low' for the MoJ.

'The government undertook to parliament to review the way mesothelioma cases are funded... Not only has Grayling broken that promise, the High Court has found, but he has done so as part of a squalid deal with his friends in the insurance industry. This heaps further embarrassment on an already-beleaguered lord chancellor.'

James Dalton, head of motor and liability at the ABI, said it was ‘frustrated’ by a development ‘which delays long overdue reform of the legal system for mesothelioma sufferers’.

He added: ‘As a result, the legal costs of mesothelioma claims in England and Wales remain disproportionately high and claimant lawyers need to answer why they do not support lowering these costs and getting more compensation to mesothelioma sufferers.’

Readers' comments (7)

  • Well done Leigh Day. The MOJ and Mr Grayling are not interested in consultation or any point of view other than that of the ABI. Legal challenge is the only way to put forward the view point of Injured Claimants.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Once again the MoJ and the Justice Secretary are left with egg on their face. Will they ever learn? Probably not, as they are guided by a relentless drive to prevent access to justice at all costs in the name of cost savings. I wonder how much this latest folly has cost the tax payer?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another day, another judgment against Mr. Grayling.

    It's becoming the legal equivalent of Brazil v Germany except that one ended in an apology.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How depressingly unrefreshing to hear the ABI bleating on about the cost of insurance claims.... that inconveniently for them leads to inevitable painful death.

    The answer is clear - stop fighting them, and pay them quickly. If you delay, the costs will become disproportionately high... stop bleating on and work to settle matters. Lengthy matters can be stopped by making a decently gauged part 36 offer.

    ...and by the way....with the absolutely massive amputation of costs in RTA, EL and PL claims, where are our huge premium discounts?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • At last a common sense stance, by the Honourable Mr Justice Willams. All these reforms being pushed through are mere cost cutting exercises, driven by the Insurance industry, and simply denying people access to justice.
    Consultation, I don't think this government even know the meaning of the word. Especially when their intention is to exclude parties who have a vested interest, simply because they are likely to object.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wouldn't crow just yet!

    One judge having some common sense doesn't mean they will on the appeal........far from!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is it not now time for Cameron to appoint a Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor a qualified lawyer who has integrity and an appreciation of the rule of law.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (7)
  • Save

layton matthew master

Lawyers recognised for LGBT work

25 October 2016By

Power list highlights efforts to improve diversity and LGBT issues.

neville rolfe

IP threats bill will help SMEs, Lords committee hears

25 October 2016By

Proposed bill could also reduce need for litigation and improve communications.

Martin Graham

Sentencing ‘starting points’ for disqualified directors

25 October 2016By

Sentencing Council tackles court order breaches in its latest consultation paper.


Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition