I have been struck by the number of stories I have encountered recently in the print and broadcast media of greedy and devious claimants, aided and abetted by their grasping lawyers, who seek to use the vehicle of a personal injury action to obtain financial windfalls to which they are not entitled.

Is there a connection between the current press attention and the mooted increase in the small-claims limit for personal injury actions to £5,000?


Sadly, the public fails to realise that an increase in the small-claims threshold will of course restrict access to justice.



Against this climate, it seems to me that the views of Fraser Whitehead (see [2004] Gazette, 21 October, 8) are unwelcome. Frankly, I am tired of hearing the sentence 'many of the cases which are dealt with are straightforward'. This is not my experience, derived from my, mainly employers' liability, caseload. Mr Whitehead's suggestion that we need to 'strip down our job to what it is really about - defining rights, enforcing rights and securing rights' seems to me a concept void of meaning. Furthermore, I would not agree that my role is to ensure that 'the resultant deal is fair'. My understanding of my job is that I have to get the best deal for my client - fairness I leave to the judiciary.



I am also dismayed by the suggestion that reducing lawyers' involvement would change, rather than damage, the profession. How so? I do not accept that if a solicitor's work and costs were halved it would simply allow him to work on another case, as Mr Whitehead suggests. The reality is that we will end up doing more work for less money - as always.


We all know that the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) have not been an unqualified success, particularly in relation to the stated aim of saving costs. I do not recall that it was lawyers in practice who were pushing for change before the CPR were introduced. However, we now have to work within the framework that has been imposed on us.


The increased involvement of the courts, as part of the case management process, has not, in my view, facilitated compromise between litigants. Furthermore, the increased judicial discretion that comes with case management powers has, more than anything, imported uncertainty into the litigation process because of the inconsistencies in the way different courts - and judges - exercise their discretion.


While we would all wish for 'a more co-operative approach from insurers', I fail to see how this will be achieved if unqualified and inexperienced staff are dealing with cases on behalf of claimants.



Garry Coghlan, Brian Camp & Co, Birkenhead