Survey: PI lawyers oppose fixed costs

Half of all personal injury lawyers are opposed to a fixed-costs regime in fast-track cases because they fear it will skew the system in favour of defendants and slash the overall damages awarded to claimants, it emerged last week.

Delegates at the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) spring conference last week were told that just 15% of the 675 respondents to its consultation welcomed the prospect of a scheme determined on a scale according to values of claims, with the remaining 35% reserving judgement until more details were put on the negotiating table.

New APIL president Patrick Allen said the experience of other cost scales, such as the one for bereavement damages, showed that levels did not rise once set, and that inflation would make awards inadequate in two years.

'We will take a lot of persuading that fixed costs are good for claimants,' he said.

'Insurers will be able to spin a case until we run out of budget.

There will be an inducement for solicitors to settle early, and no incentive to push a case to trial, where the best settlements occur.'

Mr Allen urged parties to the plans to consider other solutions, including a model for guideline costs in smaller road accident cases, and streamlining proceedings where only costs are in dispute.

Speaking this week, Andrew Parker, former president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, said there was nothing in the consultation results that showed an emphatic rejection of fixed costs.

He claimed fixed costs offered 'certainty, clarity and speed' to the benefit of both sides, adding that the issue would not be on the table 'if costs weren't running out of control'.

He also questioned the assumption that insurers would want to spin cases out; this, he argued, ran counter to APIL's argument that insurers wanted to use fixed costs to save money.

Other speakers at the conference also voiced hopes that the much-awaited House of Lords decision in Callery v Gray will set success fees at satisfactory levels.

Outgoing APIL president Frances McCarthy said claims involving conditions such as stress and repetitive strain injury are being turned away because risks outweighed success fees, and only the Lords can prevent the situation from deteriorating.

See Editorial

Paula Rohan