The news from the current Civil Litigation Costs review by Lord Jackson becomes more depressing by the day. Despite the fact that raising the small claims limit has been debated fully in the recent past, the threat is being made again, presumably in an attempt to force through recommendations to extend fixed costs to all areas of fast-track PI without a full and proper debate as to whether this is appropriate. Perhaps such strong-arm tactics are required now that APIL has pulled out of the negotiations and the Law Society has expressed its reservations.

It is scandalous that relentless high-level lobbying by the insurance industry can result in a hasty and wholesale review of personal injury costs without any debate about the merits of the proposals. It is fatuous to suggest that insurers will pass savings on to consumers; it is their shareholders who will benefit. I can only assume that the interests of shareholders now outweigh those of the claimants who have been injured or have developed an industrial disease though no fault of their own.

There are far too many reasons to enumerate here as to why these recommendations should ultimately be rejected, not least the threat to access to justice and the real prospect of claimants facing significant deductions from damages. There is also the prospect of losing even more high street practices, given the constant onslaught from PII and farcical legal aid rates. Like it or not, personal injury is big business, with the majority of fee income going back into the economy in the form of taxes, VAT, wages and to other associated businesses. Has the practical impact of the reforms been considered in that context at all? Can the government really afford to lose the revenues generated by PI?

The arguments against the proposed reforms are for more compelling than those in favour. Indeed the benefits would have to be monumental in order to outweigh the detrimental impact on claimants and their solicitors.

Please take a few minutes to register your protest at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/civilcosts so that we can highlight the number of practitioners who are opposed to these proposals and have a fighting chance of the recommendations ultimately being rejected.

Rhonwen Barraclough, Oliver & Co Solicitors, Chester