Report comment

But 20:14 sadly I cannot enlighten you as the insurers have declined to share their data with anyone.

If insurers make a commercial decision then that is tough, is it not? Just as sometimes claimants take a commercial decision not to pursue a claim, or ATE insurers not to provide cover.

That LASPO has perhaps removed an incentive to fight a case is unfortunate for insurers but I do wonder how their books have balanced post-LASPO given the savings on success fees and ATE premiums. Insurers have always taken commercial views on matters so I suspect they are well ahead.

I'm not so sure about claimant-friendly courts though. Claimant solicitors tend to issue on cases they believe will succeed, and often they are right. It doesn't mean judges are claimant-friendly and I suspect the suggestion will be insulting to them.

Anon 20:18 the costs complained of all relate to cases that have won i.e. defendants have taken a stand and lost. I agree absolutely that defendants should have the right to defend cases that should be defended, but all too often what is seen is insurers taking a stand that has chance of success but they then prolong matters and rack up not only claimant fees but defendant fees too, if the defendant solicitors concerned on not on ridiculously low fixed rates that is.

Here's the rub though. If a case is dragged on before it settles, why shouldn't defendants pay the costs if they are the ones dragging it on? Likewise, if a claimant wastes time and costs then they shouldn't be paid for the waste.