Mar 26

A Narrow Escape for Industrial Disease Victims

Posted in After The Event Insurance, Personal Injury Claims, Solicitors, The Jackson Report

The rumour was confirmed last week.  The House of Lords has voted for industrial disease claims to be exempt from reforms to no win, no fee litigation. In effect Industrial disease cases will now be exempt from the Jacksons reforms.

Under the amendment, Industrial Disease Claimants would keep 100% of their damages whilst defendants would pay their After The Event Insurance premium and lawyer’s success fee. The House of Lords agreed that these claimants have suffered enough, their claims are serious and real – they are “true victims”, and it would be unfair to expect these Claimants to lose some of their damages. After all, industrial diseases affect those that have worked long and hard to contribute to the British economy.

Hmmm… So what about other innocent victims who have their lives shattered as a result someone else’s negligence? Why would it be fair to allow them to have their damages deducted to pay for their solicitors’ success fees and ATE Insurance premiums? In essence, if your life expectancy has been reduced by a negligent employer exposing you to asbestos you are entitled to claim 100% of your damages back. However, if you have suffered serious injury as a result of lack of safety measures in the work place you’ll pay a deduction. The amendment is obviously good news for victims of industrial disease, but it doesn’t go far enough in allowing fair access to justice. Let’s just hope that the government doesn’t overturn these important amendments when the debate returns to the House of Commons.

It appears however, that it is not all good news for this exempt group, as the House of Lords refused to grant an exemption to trade unions and charities from the referral fee ban, which means many charitable organisations set up for asbestosis and other industrial disease victims will struggle for funds. The criminalisation of referral fees and whether portal costs should be reduced, is to be thrashed out in the Commons next week… so let’s wait and see … since industrial disease claims were exempt from the reforms, perhaps there is glimmer of hope for the rest of Britain’s innocent victims.

Watch this space….!

comments: Comments Off
Mar 8

Will Leveson Influence the Jackson Reforms?

Posted in Personal Injury Claims

Hello all. It has been a while. Been busy here at Box Legal.

Lots happening in the world of the strange that is the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill of late.

First bit of gossip is we have heard rumours of a push for Industrial Disease matters to be excluded from the regulations – I shall tell more if and when I get confirmation. Also, last night, the Government was handed 3 defeats by the House of Lords including medical reports for Clinical Negligence. It looks like After the Event Insurance may be recoverable for such cases. We shall see.

Today though I thought I would concentrate on something a bit more left of field.

Let’s talk about the Leveson enquiry. It has now been running for several months and all sorts of goings on have been revealed. My friend (Senior Media Partner in a top Law Firm) believes that Lord Leveson is bound to call for regulation of the media with perhaps a regulatory body being put in place which can actually fine newspapers or news organisations.

What is interesting though for us are comments which were made regarding CFAs. The hacking of Milly Dowler’s mobile phone was a real low point for journalism. The Leveson enquiry heard evidence that the Dowlers were only able to take legal proceedings because of the availability of CFAs, success fees and After the Event Insurance. They allowed the very uneven playing field to be levelled a little. Without them it would be the media (with all their ‘influences’ and money) on one side and ordinary members of the public (with very limited finances) on the other. Not a fair situation at all.

So my friend believes that Lord Leveson will recommend that CFAs, success fees and After The Event Insurance should remain.

How this is going to sit with the Government remains a big question. Will they still push through the unpopular (and most agree, unworkable) changes to civil procedure? Will APIL, MASS and The Law Society’s joint proposal begin to become attractive to Ministers who do not want to be seen to be removing access to justice?

I can sense a wind of change although the jury is still out.

comments: Comments Off