Report comment

It’s very likely that the work was acquired through CMC-leads. Like many smaller firms (and one notorious ABS) operating at the time, they probably bought NIHL claims in bulk to compensate for the removal of recoverability of additional liabilities and the introduction of fixed recoverable costs in EL, PL and RTA. This was a catastrophic mistake as, generally speaking, NIHL claims are poor quality claims - they have an inherent evidential deficit (the breach complained of occurred many years before the intimation of the claim); limitation is almost always in issue; CMC-produced audiograms are likely fabricated; disbursements are expensive (coupled with BTE/ATE caution in respect of these claims); and the science behind NIHL is complex and questionable. The firms accepting these claims for the benefit of assessed costs probably lacked the expertise and the monetary resources to prosecute them in an efficient and effective manner.

I abhor attempts by other contributors to use this particular SDT judgment as a means to paint my colleagues and myself as ‘ambulance chasers.’ I will go on record and say that I spend my day-to-day professional life helping people left with quite serious injuries achieve at least some measure of justice against unscrupulous employers, local authorities, government departments and insurance companies. Like my colleagues, my success rate speaks for itself; I am confident that claimant personal injury lawyers will continue to carry out a valuable social function in holding big business and the state to account.

Our insurer(s) contributor(s) may take an abnormal level of satisfaction in the difficulties facing our sector, but I suspect s/he (or they) will come out of it a lot worse than qualified solicitors and chartered legal executives.