Report comment

Timothy - there was a time when, if liability was admitted in a brain/spinal injury clinical negligence case, the LAB or LSC would effectively give unlimited funding, knowing that they would at most be paying for it on payment on account basis, but would recover in full at the end of the case. They might perhaps take a closer look at applications for an increase in the certificate if significant offers of settlement had been made, but even then, would (usually) listen to sense. The LSC originally took a similarly relaxed attitude even in lower value cases if liability was admitted.

Then costs/benefits ratios were brought in, and applied strictly. It didn't matter if you had liability in the bag or not, the LSC and then LAA insisted that the costs benefit ratios had to be met.

A while later, they also switched to their "staged". A certain amount allowed to investigate and issue proceedings, then separate amounts for different stages of the litigation. The only variable the LSC and now LAA take into account is the number of experts. Any application for funding over and above those "stage" amounts would be doomed to failure.

It is declared irrelevant that liability is admitted, but prognosis is unclear and so additional quantum reports will be required in some years' time. Irrelevant that your experts and counsel are declaring this one of the most complicated cases they have ever dealt with and a second conference with experts is needed to consider the Defendant's Letter of Response before Particulars are drafted. The result is always the same: no further funding.