Report comment

I read this Judgment as having potentially serious implications for proposals such as the implementation of fixed fees in clin neg cases, fixed fees in MT cases, ever increasing court fees which bear no relationship to the actual amount of work needed to be done by the Court, the proposed whiplash reforms and extension of the SCT limit. All measures could easily be read against this Judgment as potentially ultra vires.

Paragraphs 73 - 85 are a worthy read (as indeed is the whole Judgment). If, for example, you have a £4.5k injury claim for which you cannot obtain representation because it would be a SCT matter, or a clin neg claim which is not economically viable to bring , are those not also examples justice denied, just as is discussed in those paragraphs?