One or two crucial issues are being overlooked in the current debate about the possibility of the financial limit for small personal injury claims being raised in the county court.


First, before-the-event insurance providers of road traffic motor policies will perhaps have to admit that they would not be able to sustain their current business models and commercial bargains with panel solicitors where their indemnity is illusory as they never, in reality, expect to pay anything out to those solicitors.



True premiums for motor cover would probably need to be nearer to £75 than the nominal ones being charged at the moment if the insurers were going to attract panel solicitors to undertake work on 'small' personal injury claims and to have actually to pay them something.



They will not regard this as marketable, so they will withdraw cover, raising 'access to justice' concerns and at the same time making their product less attractive.



Second, if claims management companies or their like were to be permitted to 'assist' a claimant on a contingency fee basis (payment by a percentage of damages), then the appropriate changes to the law and our professional regulations would have to be made to ensure a level playing field for solicitors.



This is in addition to the many other widespread consequences of making such a change (courts log-jammed with litigants-in-person, injustice of lay claimants fighting against professionally represented insurers, etcetera).



One wonders about the extent to which the legislators actually sit down and think about the real consequences of such radical proposals.



Neil Sugarman, managing partner, GLP Solicitors, Bury