Report comment

Don't particularly want to go over all of the old ground but I think most Claimant firms will agree that :-

1. In the substantive action, much of the necessary work is due to the manner in which the Defendant conducts it's case;

2. A reasonable approach by the Defendant would always drive down costs;

3. The Defendant's are the one's drawing cases out and thereby increasing costs;

4. Fixing costs will allow Defendant's to drag things out even longer without the fear of costs escalation.

The above article highlights why nobody should fall for the claims made by Defendants representatives :

"There is also evidence of claimant solicitors attempting to claim costs well in excess of the current guideline hourly rates..."

Is this really justification for fixing costs ? There is "evidence" that someone has dared to claim more than the guideline rate ? Is that it ? Perhaps deviation from the guideline rate was justified ? If it wasn't, you can be sure that the Defendant didn't just agree it.

These cases are of the highest complexity and warrant reasonable remuneration for the hard work and expertise that such involves. However, this latest proposal is a worrying indication that the powers that be will seek to automate the system so as to mitigate the cost to Defendants on the mistaken premise that the current system is too costly for negligent medics and their procrastinating representatives.

Everyone involved must take part in the consultation process so as to ensure that the voices of the Claimants are loudly heard.

The Government are happy to allow Defendants to find their own ways around the criminal justice system and therefore, they're not likely to have any sympathy with victims of medical mistakes.