Report comment

@David Crawford Commented on: 22 February 2017 14:04 GMT:

"....If for you it's justifiable to charge £72,320 for a claim which was never worth more than £5,000, this clin. neg. world has become like Alice in Wonderland. And clearly the judge in this case agreed. ..."

And gets us a bad name and is obviously contrary to proportionality.

"...However, you might well ask what i would do in its place. I have three suggestions:

2. Have agreements that defendants will not plead limitation if negotiations are carrying on unless and until they give 28 days' notice to the contrary. This would avoid the claim fees and other costs associated with issuing a 'protective' claim; "

A very good idea and one that is used now in ET's as per ACAS Conciliation as you and I know but many on here won't. .

"....3. Each side should be required to make an open Pt 36 offer before issue; .."

Again I don't know why they are not.

"....4. Have boards to assess the value of claims and liability similar to CICB. This could all be done on paper evidence. Three board members each puts in his assessment and the average is the amount of the award, discounted if appropriate in case of any contributory negligence plus a liability award expressed in % terms so claimant gets something, whereas under the existing system he gets nothing if, by fair means or foul, NHS can escape a finding of liability. ...I can already hear the howls of derision emanating from the clin. neg. practitioners who make their comfortable livings racking up costs....."

I think most of my Barrister colleagues have just wet themselves.