I read that Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson sees the changes in low-value RTA litigation as ‘serious.’ He notes ‘all the spurious talk about fraudulent claims’.
I can see his point but, having defended fraudulent insurance claims for the past 16 years, I can assure him that the continuing fraud pandemic is anything but spurious. We can argue about how to address this, but it was inevitable that change would result.
That said, I do not recall too much indignation when, for example, the 100% costs uplift was introduced. Many objectively minded members of the profession will not be mourning the passing of that pernicious little rule. In most other jurisdictions, I am told, claimant lawyers make a charge which invariably comes out of damages. If, for whatever reason, the UK comes into line, I do not understand what the fuss is about.
But, in accordance with the current vogue, it is mandatory to produce a self-defined victim group to support one’s stance. Sure enough, ‘many innocent victims with real, debilitating injuries will lose out’. Will they really? If innocent victims exist, by definition there must also be guilty victims. I am not entirely sure what they are, but suspect that they should lose out.
There is a continuing and longstanding deluge of dubious claims for non-existent injury. In many instances, the vast bulk of the damages goes to the hire/management companies. We, as lawyers, should face the uncomfortable truth that we have played too great a part in nurturing that situation.
James Pinder, DWF, Preston