Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


Sorry anon 6:23 - that's a fair question, I wasn't being clear.

I meant JCA Solicitors - the defendants in this case.

I was trying to make the point that Haven is an insurance company who have quite rightly come under substantial criticism for contacting a represented client with the express intention of settling the claim directly and saving themselves the fees that the solicitor should rightly be entitled to.

But in my opinion, the conduct of JCA here is worse because of their status as solicitors. OK, they don’t appear to have attempted to ‘pay off’ the client in this case, but the intention of the correspondence they sent directly to this newly represented client is quite clear – to put the fear of God into their former client, presumably with the intention of him withdrawing his proceedings seeking a copy of his papers.

We know from the judgment that what is on those papers (i.e. a half disclosed CFA, a bill charging £250 an hour for RTA work etc ) it appears clear that JCA solicitors have something to hide and are likely to face a reduction of their bill on assessment and the subsequent cost penalties come with that.

Thus, the motivation of Haven and JCA Solicitors were ultimately the same – protect their own position and save costs at the expense of a lay client. But while Haven may (and should in my opinion) face severe cost sanctions for their conduct, JCA should be held to a much higher standard as a result of their position as officers of the court.

Your details