Report comment

One of the main points that Osborne fails to address is that the value of the claim is only ONE governing dynamic in decided track allocation.

I acted for a Claimant where his claim was worth £2000.00 but he was wrongfully accused of fraud (not being in the vehicle) Now, this allegation did not surface until the Defence was filed.
The case settled on the morning of the Trial. C was completely 100% innocent.

The point I make is, under these reforms, this Claimant’s case, ( Based on a £2000.00 value) would probably not be dealt with by a firm of Solicitors. With a £2000.00 value, the claim would have been risk assessed as small claim and financially an unattractive piece of litigation.
Can you imagine the mess of a McKenzie Friend or CMC assist a litigant in person against a fraud allegation or LVI defence. The value is only one indicator of the complexity of the proceedings.
Of course Osborne and the lay, adopt the position that “well , it is a £2000.00 claim, how complicated can it be” ??? It can be very complicated. But of course the insurers will still use lawyers on the SCT leaving the innocence victim with a mountain to climb