High Court told of Downing Street deal with insurers
The government and insurers negotiated a deal to cut personal injury legal costs in a series of emails prior to a summit at Downing Street, the High Court heard this morning.
In its submission to a judicial review hearing, lawyers acting for the claimant lobby highlighted correspondence between the Cabinet Office and Association of British Insurers which led to a commitment from the government to reduce fixed recoverable costs.
The hearing will decide if the government acted lawfully in deciding to reduce fixed fees in the RTA Portal before a wider consultation could be held.
Paul Nicholls QC, representing the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said claimants were left out of discussions completely in the run-up to the insurers’ meeting with the prime minister on 14 February last year.
Instead, a series of emails were sent to insurers, including one from the Cabinet Office which stated ‘this looks good, I think we’re getting close’.
In his submission, Nicholls said: ‘The process involved consulting with insurers. It was not just saying “we’re abolishing referral fees – will it have any relevance?” The government came to a decision in the light of what the insurers say to it. The insurers are a party to the decision-making process.
‘It is more than consultation, it is a negotiation.’
Nicholls said this failure in the process meant the government ‘cannot be saved’ by the fact there was a later consultation as ‘by that time it was too late.’
But judges deciding to grant permission for a judicial review at the Royal Courts of Justice seemed unconvinced by elements of the argument.
Mr Justice Cranston told Nicholls: ‘This is politics. This is negotiating. It happens all the time.’
Lord Justice Elias added: ‘Government would grind to a halt in every case if you say “you talked to x but you’ve not talked to me”.’
In his opening submission, James Eadie QC, representing the justice secretary, said claimants had failed to show why the government had to consult on this element of policymaking.
He said: ‘There is no duty to consult as a necessity. That duty is contained and confined for good reason.’
The hearing comes two days after the government confirmed that fixed fees for low-value claims will fall from £1,200 to £500 from the end of April.
APIL and the Motor Accidents Solicitors Society want the decision reviewed. The case was set to continue this afternoon, with judges expected to decide whether to proceed with a judicial review.
Comments
Question
What happens if, or perhaps when, leave is refused? Is there a right of appeal? I cannot conceive that the High Court would allow this rank self serving policy making between the Government and the insurers.............but, and it's a huge but.........i never honestly thought that a British Government would behave like this.
How far does the corruption
How far does the corruption spread?
The fertive govt - insurer emails warrant a public enquiry. Negotiating policy with the insurers, while they pay £70k+ for Grayling refurbishments. Oh come on. Self serving back scratching dressed up as policy for the greater good. None of this stacks up to intelligent scrutiny.
That we are even at this point - in the HIgh Court, beggars belief. How on earth have insurers managed to pull so much wool over so many eyes?
The govt are guilty of misfeasance in public office. Why no police?
Old boy's club.
To you Keoghs Kennedys BLM HF
To you Keoghs Kennedys BLM HF et all boys and girls reading these threads, have you yet figured out that you ought to be worried too or are you at RCJ waving the flag of Aviva ignorant to the fact that you too face extinction? You have been sold down the river too, by your clients and the government.
CMCs make their money from
CMCs make their money from insurers passing claims on in order to extract money from other insurers. The latter insurers are doing the same as the former.
Aviva vs Admiral. Admiral vs Aviva.
You have both as clients.
Put two and two together.
Maybe credit hire will die. In about ten years.
Yeh?
Gosh Bob, what a good point!
No one at any of the firms you mention want what happened, but it was inevitable largely because the fictional bills of costs routinely served by claimant firms (all of them frankly).
So to be clear, we are aware and we blame your ilk for having fat greasy fingers and an inability to put in genuine bills of costs.
Clear enough?
Clear yes - Clearly wrong I'm
Clear yes - Clearly wrong I'm afraid.
If our bills are too large - don't run spurious ridiculous arguments. Don't send me Pt 18 requests asking what my client ate for breakfast last Thursday. Don't admit liability, and then apply to resile. Don't introduce 4 new witnesses the day before trial. Don't come to trial 3 years after an accident with a new game changing document. Don't deny an interim payment of £2k on a £20k case.
And if all of this fails - take the bill to assessment.
No-one at your firm wanted this?! Might want to check that with your senior partners. As I said, sold down by the river by your bosses, the insurers, and the government.
Well said Bob!
Well said Bob!
claimants had failed to show why the government had to consult o
"In his opening submission, James Eadie QC, representing the justice secretary, said claimants had failed to show why the government had to consult on this element of policymaking."
Because there are 2 very polarised sides to this story, and the eventual decision will result in the decimation of an industry, mass uneployment, a huge hole in the treasury and the return of peoples' right of redress to the level it was before the industrial revolution.
Even the Government response used the word "polarised" on several occasions.
This is setting up to be a(nother) whitewash.
Media silence.
Am I the only one a little surprised that the Media are not running this ? Given that Claimant's ( Joe Public) the readers of the tabloids, will be affected by this nonsense in the long run, you would have thought the daily rags would have been all over it. Something smells
Tim - the media have over a
Tim - the media have over a period of many years conspired with various governments to 'bury' news or they wont get other tit bits of info.
Plus Joe and Joanne Public would be interested if they could see Grayling and APIl competeing as to who could eat the most beatles or lay in a box of snakes the longest - but that would be grayling wouldnt it - he's in with the snakes every day!!
Can`t get a Christmas hamper
Most business people you speak to these days say they don`t except gifts anymore (even a Christmas Hamper) due to the Bribery Act. Yet, a £5 million donation to the Conservative Party or paying £70,000 donation to a policymaker is not worthy of concern or investigation.
The fact that the parties involved then go on to make decisions for the sole benefit of the contributors has got to fall foul of the act by anyone's standards. At the very least they should be returning the money.
Meida Silence
I don't think anybody (The Meida) appreciated the magnitude of this or indeed cares in any event - PI and Ambulance Chasers have been tainted so are all by default crooks!!!
I believe this is all a pre-meditated plan - next it will be TP capture who will literallty market themselves on not taking any damages from Jo Public (DBA's) so they will cut the supply to the CMC/Solcitoris who are left in the indusrty.
As for the non - consultation - you get a feel for the Judge's mind set on this by them saying that they would get nothing done if they consulted on everything!!!
This is such a one sided decision it is beyond belief. It was never a level playing field am afraid.
Media Silence
But surely if all interested parties (of which there are hundreds) contributed (a small amount) to a fighting fund and, as a collective, brought in a decent marketing agency to raise this in the media in a way that the public would understand the total injustice of this could be highlighted?
I agree that the system needed changing but the way its been done defies any logic and reason.
media silence
the law soc should have been doing this for years
where is the good lawyer pr campaign
the only headlines we get are about the bad uns out there
One suggestion is that
One suggestion is that someone needs to take the role of organising a trip to the parliament, with boards in the hands and ready to make noise. I'm sure people can take one day off and show the govt that this is all wrong! That may just instigate the journalist to start digging for more info, ands wring how good these journalist are I'm sure they will dig some dirt out. Come on, they took on the biggest newspaper! I say get using social networking sites to organise a trip to LONDON! Ps count me in I'm ready to tie myself to a tree! Lol
The government aren't reading
The government aren't reading or interested in any view expreswed on this site. The media aren't either. A huge news story is completely ignored and not just by the right wing and tabloid press. We have to face it, no one's interested. The game's over for PI unless you have huge volume and ultra low overheads or have a magical supply to high value cases.
Anyone not deluded realised this months ago but some of the stuff on this site in recent weeks suggests some have woken up to the news.
Media Silence
I remember in 1993 winning Devlin v Baslingden in the CofA, the first landmark credit hire judgement. The story had everything, David v Goliath court battle effecting ordinary motorists, with celebrity solicitor Brian Moore, then the England RFU hooker, heavily involved. I couldn't get any national press coverage of the outcome, which was explained by a friend on the Independent. Quite simply, the insurers spent too much on advertising in the national press to want to offend them. Clearly all that's changed is they now have the government in their pockets as well.
Media Silence
Could it be that the media has been and remains silent in the face of the imminent destruction of the Civil Justice system because if they did they would also see the back of the CFA. If I were a newspaper I would not want to be sued by libel lawyers charging £1000 per hour plus a 100% mark up.
Or is it more serious than that. A " No noise, no Leveson" agreement.
Lets face it folks we are heading back to the dark ages.
And if any fat butted Ct App Judge asks me to help make these changes" Work" ( because he rightly feels that they are unworkable) he knows what he can do. I am here for my clients and will use my 34 years experience to keep screwing insurers so hard that their pips will squeak!
Bring it on!!
Consultation
What is the authority for the proposition that the government (as opposed to organs with delegated powers) has to consult anyone on anything? There isn't any. The government was elected and is sovereign. It's not surprising Cranston and Elias were not impressed by that argument.
Consultation
There is a difference between not consulting at all and only consulting one side of those affected. One would be legitimate if stupid but the other is more than a tadge smelly!
Media Silence
I think you'll find this govt is not elected, it has come together as a coalition to form a mandate less govt.
Media Silence
I agree that the press may not want to run a story but through a proper PR and marketing campaign the message could be communicated (in a factual way) to dispel the compensation myths, what this means to the genuine claimant etc
Consultation- Anon
Erm, because they said they would, and because they said there was to be a full proper and open consultation process. Not some stitch up deal to benefit one side at the expense of everybody else.
And if you are work for a defendants firm be warned. Every case you have in your office has been brought to you by someone like me, a Claimants solicitor.
I will be here till I drop, but many apparently wont. Not enough money in it for them any more. Its up to them. So you will have unreconstructed PI monsters like me who will be out gunning for you, and know exactly how to deal with you guys, and legions of LIPs to deal with.
Dont you wish there ad been a proper consultation now?
Captain - is there any room
Captain - is there any room for more crew on the good ship 'Claimant Lawyer' 'cos i'm not going away either and will be doing my damdest to make sure people can still get what they are entitled to.
ditto
We wont be bullied out of this profession either....
Fixed fees falling by £700
Fixed fees falling by £700 and will we see any reduction in our insurance premiums? Like hell, we will!!!
Judgment at 4pm which allows
Judgment at 4pm which allows 20 minutes consideration. It's nice to know that the the jobs of thousands merits a mere 20 minutes consideration.
Judicial Review
Where can we see a copy of the judgment?
Thanks
Judicial Review
Where can we see a copy of the judgment?
Thanks
joke
the court clarifies what we all knew: corruption-- ''this is politics''
Discretion
APIL cannot get home on a primary consultation ground, as no promise to consult existed so no legitimate expectation arose. However, by consulting - even negotiating - with the insurers, prior to a decision to cut fees, it is arguable that the government did not 'hear the other side' and thus fettered its discretion.
Dark Forces
Does the "D" Notice system still exist and have the Govt issued one in this instance?
Forget about the loss of fees.
Justice is about to go out the window.
Jo & Josie public will lose out.
The Friday pay packet chap, children, the elderly and the ill informed.
Then there is professional indemnity insurance.
No one can do justice to Quantum with the fees being allowed.
Loads of firms are going to go to the wall.
My kids are being told "Read medicine be a doctor, no PI to worry about and have fun with peoples lives in the mickey mouse NHS".
Every civilised society needs quality lawyers.
But not ours the Govt feels.
After spending the last year
After spending the last year researching and writing my dissertation on the Jackson reforms and advising others of the impending destruction of this industry, it appears that the ignorant are only just being clued in to the detrimental effect of these reforms. The whole situation is completely frustrating.
There will never be a reduction in insurance premiums, the reasoning behind the portal was to make costs proportionate and in turn reduce premiums, but instead they rose in the 12 months after the introduction.
Complete lies have been constructed in order to justify these changes along with bandying around the term compensation culture, which in itself is a complete myth. Lord Young's report is yet another misguided attempt at any justification.
Childish Comments
The level and debate one here reflects very poorly on the profession, the childish comments and risible partisan nature of the theme do nothing other than reinforce the (in some areas) commonly held belief that the Law Society is no more than the legal arm of the Labour Party.
Let's be frank, arguing for the status quo was never a credible line to hold, the only question if you accept this is to argue over the degree of reduction.
As far as I am aware the Law Society, APIL, MASS & etc have not enaged adequately or at all with the Government over the last 3 years, and now they're surpised that their voice is an echo in the wilderness?
Let's be honest, yes the reduction will hurt, but 50% of cases fall out of the portal in any event, it will not take much of an increase in the drop out rate to render the reduction in the portal costs to be little more than an incentive to modernise and innovate.
JR
What's the point of engaging in a process where your views will be ignored? I agree that we're down but not out. We do need a collective publicity campaign because the government and insurers have succeeded in winning the public's hearts and minds. We need to win the PI war so clients bring their cases to us rather than going direct to the insurers.
this matter the subject of this article
"They died with their boots on".
When I die, on the soles of both of my shoes will be indelibly written the names of every single insurance company I have ever dealt with.
I was taught that if you go into the personal injury game to remember one thing, if you as a lawyer saw a baby in the gutter you would bend down and pick it up - insurance companies will rub their heels in its face.
Fight on.
Onwards and upwards - the poor Claimants need us and don't forget it.
And remember, there is "more than one way to skin a cat".
Media Silence - BBC Radio 4
I sent details of the reforms, the implications and the date of the hearing ro BBC Radio 4 the day they had Lord Wolfe on the programme (Remeber him and his reforms, they are the ones being reformed). I've listened to the programme every day since. Guess what! NOTHING REPORTED. Shame on them!
Issue?
I know that many law graduates will read these posts by lawyers talking about corruption and laugh.
The training contract ensures that progress is mainly dependent upon who you know or your personal networks or how rich your mummy or daddy is and if you went to a private school.
Many law graduates have been denied access to the legal profession due to the fact that they haven't established the right networks.
Why are lawyers complaining now because they've been hard done by due to the insurers 'knowing the right people' in government? I don't hear many lawyers complaining about old posh boy networks denying opportunities to working class law graduates.
The legal profession does not reflect the people or the diversity of the nation and as a result many ordinary people will not sympathise with lawyers. I do not agree with the RTA portal cuts but my point is that lawyers in general will find that your ordinary Joe public doesn’t care about lawyers or like them very much.
Get a grip
"Posh boy networks"? Get a grip!
Class has nothing to do with it. I came from a very poor family, my partner came from a very working class family, want to know how we got anywhere? We got minimum wage jobs, cleaning or stacking shelves, to support ourselves through education and such like. Got into a scary amount of debt. We don't envy anyone who had all of that paid for them, that's life. The legal professionals I know have worked to get where they are... not just networked with "the posh boys".
Jim, how is this relevant to anything?
You disagree with the fees.
Great.
Did you just want to air some misplaced frustrations about chances you never had?
Make your own chances.
That is an awfully naïve
That is an awfully naïve opinion Jim. At the moment Joe Public only sees the insurers impressive PR machine working overtime and lawyers desperately trying to react in the face of a government who are wholly against their view point.
Their understanding of the issues are warped by the sheer lack of a balanced argument and unfortunately they will only realise the truth effects when they find their compensation has to be used to pay legal bills and their premiums still do not go down!
.......As for this 'Old Boys Club' theory I never had mummy or daddy to open doors or some hidden inheritance war chest to get into the industry and neither have most of the people I have met over the last decade.
You get a training contract and job through what's called hard work and lack of an inferiority complex. I get bombarded with requests for 'paid' work experience and job applications where the 'wet behind the ear