Report comment

Anon at 15:59 - when you refer to imbalance I expect it is a matter of perspective.

I have just this morning settled a claim for five times less than what the Claimant's claim was originally pleaded for. Our witness evidence had made it clear enough that he is a dishonest character that was being performance managed out of his job because he could not be trusted to manage his patients with respect and the appropriate application of his extensive training. However, having only a non-verbal autistic patient as an eye-witness of the relevant incident, and a medical expert who - like most of them - is willing to say whatever the Claimant's solicitor pays him to, the insurance client accepted the very real risk that the Court would just give the Claimant the benefit of the doubt and award him something, with his sickeningly unprofessional and rude solicitor's costs to follow.

On a cost-benefit analysis, the Defendant would have spent £15-20,000 running this matter to a full Trial with no assurance that there is a fair system in place to allow them to recover their outlay.

I am sure you will refer to a few incidents where Defendants have, in your view, put forward a wrongly robust defence which you (inaccurately) consider "dishonest". But that is far, far outweighed by the number of lying, exaggerating Claimants supported by underhanded solicitors and immoral medical experts that I have come across in my 11 years of practice so far.

Like I said, imbalance is a matter of perspective.