October date set for PI fixed fees scheme

The fixed fees scheme for low-value personal injury cases that settle pre-issue is set to be introduced in October, it emerged this week.

The Civil Procedure Rules Committee has decided that the scheme will not be retrospective, only applying to accidents that happen after the start date, but solicitors engaged in cases that have already begun will be strongly encouraged by the government to stick to it as well.

The rules committee is set to sign off the draft rule and practice direction after considering final submissions on their detail.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has pencilled in 1 October as the date the scheme will go live.

The scheme will see claimant solicitors receive base costs of 800 plus 20% of the damages up to 5,000.

They will then receive 15% of any damages from 5,000 to 10,000.

It includes a 5% success fee.

The rules committee finalised the outstanding details of the scheme after a consultation organised by the Civil Justice Council.

As a result, London weighting of 12.5% will apply, even though most claimant solicitors called for 25%.

An Association of Personal Injury Lawyers spokeswoman said the Supreme Court Costs Office applied a 25% London weighting and it saw no reason to depart from this.

She added that the association had also called on the committee to introduce a sanction if costs are not paid.

In the event of claimant solicitors not accepting the fixed costs and seeking a detailed assessment, the rules committee has decided that claimant solicitors must be awarded at least 20% more than the fixed costs or have to pay the defendant's costs of the assessment proceedings.

Defendant lawyers had pushed for the level to be set at 50%, while most claimants backed 20%.

Meanwhile, the DCA last week launched a consultation on the approach it should take in simplifying the conditional fee agreement regulations.

Following this, it will publish a further consultation on proposals for reform by the end of the year, with any legislative changes not being made before mid 2004.

The consultation asks whether the regulations should be made less detailed, leaving lawyers' obligations under their own rules to fill the gaps.

Neil Rose