Report comment

Thanks Anon @ 10.46.

In response to Anon @ 09.56, I meant access to justice in it's literal sense. It doesn't need defining. I also didn't make the assumptions which you suggest that I did. My point wasn't about quantum of damages or costs. It was about whether a system devised by the CEO of the MIB is going to be a fair one. My view is that it isn't. Because their is a clear inequality of arms. That's all.

The public aren't up in arms about it because they don't know that it's happening. They were probably watching Corrie whilst we were watching the Parliament channel. They almost certainly don't know that in a couple of years time when they have an RTA, they'll have to find their way through the process alone. They will receive inadequate offers and will prefer to take the money and walk away rather than take on a fight with a deep-pocketed insurer. That is the unfairness which I am referring to.

Notably, your reply to mine doesn't contradict my assertion that the reforms will negatively impact on the right to access to justice.

And yes I do know what reputation PI lawyers have. I've spoken to many seriously injured accident victims who have nothing but praise for those who have represented them.