Report comment

When reading this article I thought what a breath of fresh air but surely there must be a sting in the tail somewhere and there is was, " the obvious solution is to introduce reasonable and proportionate’ fixed legal costs". I thought they had been introduced or is this just a way of smoothing the ground for fixed costs in clinical negligence claims? One has to wonder.

In any event, he is right insofar as the compensation culture is a myth (which as everyone knows is publicised by self-interested parties and bought hook, line and sinker by HMG). I agree, if you think you have a good case Mr Defendant then please, go to court.

The problem is Defendants, particularly local authorities fight too many cases they should not be fighting. If the claimant has a clear case, rather than fighting the claim when you know you will eventually have to pay out, just to try and knock a bit off the damages, just pay the Claimant a fair and proper settlement with the knowledge that the costs will be lower at that stage (particularly in cases less than £25k). Get your house in order in the beginning and you will know whether you have a defence that will succeed. Insurers, employ people with some common sense and properly train them. If however you have got a defence, go to trial. Only issue is you won't recover your costs even if you win, with the exception of fundamental dishonesty of course.

How about a system where say if the Defendant wins at trial they get their costs paid from a policy of insurance taken out by the claimant. If they lose they pay the policy. They take the risk but most importantly if they have a good defence it is worth going to trial because they will recoup their fees if they win.