Jackson considers raising personal injury small claims limit
Lord Justice Jackson has hinted that he might recommend increasing the small claims limit for personal injury cases if there is no deal on fast-track fixed costs, the Gazette can reveal.
His last public address before going into report-writing purdah is being seen as a warning shot across the bows of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.
Last month APIL walked out of the talks which Jackson had initiated on extending fixed costs to ‘fast track’ claims, which are worth up to £25,000. APIL said it had pulled out of the talks because they were focusing solely on figures rather than whether or not fixed fees were appropriate for the fast track.
Addressing the Civil Court Users Association conference in Leicester, Jackson said that among the issues he has to consider are whether to propose a comprehensive system of fixed costs in the fast-track, and whether the small claims limit for personal injury should be raised.
‘Although these issues are separate, there may possibly be a link between the two,’ he said. ‘On one view, it may be easier to keep the small claims limit for personal injury claims at £1,000, if fixed costs are implemented across the fast-track.’
Claimant lawyers have vigorously resisted any change to the small claims limit for years. In claims below the limit, the claimant is unable to claim back their solicitor’s costs if they win.
APIL president John McQuater said it was ‘inappropriate’ to link the small claims limit with fast-track fixed costs, noting that it was only last year that the government ruled out increasing the limit. ‘What’s changed since then?’ he demanded. ‘Nothing.’
Comments
Jackson bullying PI lawyers
Can someone please explain to me why we have Jackson LJ threatening to raise the small claims limit when the MOJ has already ruled it out? IS this just a fit of pique and over reaction to APIL's walk out?
What is the judiciary's motivation for seeking to impose fixed fees for all fast track cases when the MOJ has ruled it out for all but RTA's under £10,000?
I am prepared to streamline my firm's services so far as I can to ensure we deal with cases even more efficiently and try to make a reasonable profit but the fact is that every time we innovate to increase efficiency we are merely saving money for inefficient insurers. When the time comes to review fixed fees, we will be told that we are now so efficient that we don't need an increase - saving money for the insurers again.
Why is Jackson so keen to help the insurance industry? He is certainly not helping the injured victim who doesn't pay for the claim anyway. How does it help access to justice to leave innocent victims unable to find a lawyer willing to take on a small claim?
If Jackson were to increase the small claims limit, it would inevitably lead to an increase in the number of litigants in person - is that really what he wants? The Court Service is already hopelessly inefficient and DJ's don't have enough time even to deal with agreed directions within a reasonable time. Jackson should direct his attention to finding ways to make insurers more efficient and reduce the burden on District Judges by bringing back a form of automatic directions. We all send in the same directions every time anyway - why do we need a DJ to agree them months after we sent them in? All this achieves is to allow the defendants to waste even more time and keep the victim out of his compensation even longer.
Poor PI lawyers
The question shouldn't be "what is the judiciary's motivation for seeking to impose fixed fees" but rather why did the MOJ rule this out? Trade union pressure?
There is a certain irony in many of the other comments appearing on this site being concerned with spiralling PII quotes and yet PI lawyers thinking that any attempt to fix legal costs is simply an attempt to "help the insurance industry". There is a direct link between what insurers have to pay out in claims and the level of premium they charge.
We all pay insurance premiums, whether directly or indirectly. Controlling legal costs, and thereby hopefully reducing the size of insurance premiums, should be to the benefit of society as a whole, not just to insurers.