Report comment

1. A success fee is essentially compensation for the solicitors' other losing cases- why should this be the responsibility of the defendant? A claimant has no obligation to go with a solicitor who will charge them a success fee if the market provides alternatives;
2. ATE is insurance against the claim failing and the costs being awarded against the claimant despite the QOCS regime. Again, why should this be the defendant's responsibility? The claimant can either choose not to insure, and be careful to not act unreasonably so that costs are not shifted back to him if the claim fails, or pay the premium which in any event will only payable if the claim succeeds and is payable from damages.
3. Both sides are in the business of undermining the other side's story in ligitation, why should personal injury be any different? When a claimant is asked "how much did you lose?" there is a massive incentive for the claimant to name the highest believable amount. The test of fundamental dishonesty may give the claimant a stronger incentive to give an accurate number than an inflated one.

Insurance premiums tend to be reasonably priced where the payer of the premium is also the person paying the deducible and deciding whether to make a claim. Insurance premiums are high where the person paying and person claiming are different people- in such situations, the key is to design a system where the claimant faces a small but significant hurdle (like a customer does with a policy deductible payment) before making a claim.