Jun 15

Part 36 Offer Cost Liability to Remain Post Jackson

Posted in Personal Injury Claims

Says it all really.

I have been keeping quiet as things have been somewhat busy here at Box Legal. We are in the process of launching a number of new products including After the Event Insurance for the PIP Implant claims as well as for defective hip replacement implants. Looks like a busy 12 months ahead.

So why the headline? Well the Ministry of Justice has now heard back from the steering committee with recommendations concerning exceptions to our old favourite – Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOWCS). It appears that it wasn’t as simple as Lord Jackson proposed (and as we predicted). Anyway, the long and short of it is that claimants will still be facing quite a few risks of paying adverse costs under the new regime as before.

First is the uncertainty which is prevailing regarding the behaviour of the claimant. Fraud is clearly a no-no and would not be covered by ATE insurance anyway but it seems the MoJ is keen to allow judges to award costs against an unreasonable claimant. No definition yet (great) and even if there is one, it is bound to be fairly woolly so claimants won’t be sure whether or not they will have to pay costs.

Then there is the proposal of a minimum costs payment – i.e. QOWCS won’t mean no costs but instead may mean ‘fixed costs’. This is another example of brilliant lobbying by defendant insurers - watering down the plans.

Mixed claims won’t get protection. ‘Mixed’ here means where subrogated items (such as the client’s insurer’s outlay) being added into the claim. We aren’t sure if this includes employer’s subrogated claims where they seek recovery of wages paid to an injured employee whilst off sick. No guide as yet on this one.

The final – and biggest – exception will be Part 36 offers (hence the headline). Basically, if the claimant fails to beat a part 36 offer, costs will be assessed and will have to be paid up to the total of the damages they were awarded. Brilliant. So again, as predicted, defendant insurers have an easy way of getting around QOWCS. They will simply make an offer of say £1000 on every claim which then puts the presure on the claimant – they are at risk of paying costs from day one. Some cases are of course quite large. If a claimant has only third party insurance, repairs or replacement of their vehicle will form part of the claim. This could add up to £5,000 quite easily. Will claimants really want to risk losing all of these damages? Without any ATE Insurance, they will be under enormous pressure to accept a low Part 36 offer. It is not just about the adverse costs of course – the claimant’s solicitor’s disbursements will add up to a pretty penny too!

Our view is, all claimants will have to take out a policy to cover them against these risks and that they will have to insure day one. If they don’t and the defendant fires off a low Part 36 offer (which they will on most cases), we see very high premiums to protect claimants against a very real risk.

Over and out.

comments: Comments Off
Jun 12

Seeking redress for women affected by PIP scandal

Posted in Guest bloggers, Personal Injury Claims

Author: Fiona Hedges, Mercury Legal

For over a decade PIP breast implants, also known as M-implants, have been produced and distributed worldwide by French manufacturer Poly Implant Prothese.

It is estimated that over 500,000 implants were sold worldwide before it was discovered that the manufacturer had been filling the PIP implants with industrial-grade silicone, a product more typically used as mattress filler.

In March 2012 the High Court recommended that a Group Litigation Order be pursued in relation to personal injury claims for women who have received PIP breast implants. The Group Litigation order will potentially allow the estimated 50,000 women in the UK affected by the scandal to pursue claims for compensation.

Class actions such as the PIP Group Litigation Order, whilst not unheard of, are uncommon and there are many hurdles to overcome to pursue a claim however at this stage we are extremely confident that we will ultimately be successful and justice will prevail.

The PIP Group Litigation Order is made especially complex due to the sheer volume of clinics and surgeon’s, both private and public, who supplied PIP implants to women across the UK. Due to the unregulated nature of the UK cosmetic industry it can be a difficult task to track down not only a defendant company but also their insurers (if the defendant company is no longer trading).  In addition to this, consideration must be given as to whether a claim ought to be brought under negligence or contract laws.

Mercury legal solicitors have established an excellent reputation in the personal injury arena and so when concerns started to be raised about the PIP breast implant difficulties it was little surprise that we were contacted by companies representing a large number of women affected by the implants to see if we would be able to help.

Although time is running out on the Group Litigation Order, we believe that victims will be able to claim up until the end of 2014 as most people were not informed of the fundamental problems with the implants until the beginning of 2011.

However, we will not know the challenges bringing these cases will bring post the closer of the Group Litigation Order.  But when we do, Mercury Legal will be leading the way representing the victims affected by the scandal on a no win no fee basis and publishing advice on our dedicated  PIP breast implant website.

Once your case is accepted by Mercury Legal they will work tirelessly on your behalf on a strict no win no fee basis so you will keep 100% of the compensation you deserve. Mercury Legal work alongside Box Legal to make sure that you are protected every step of the way and will never be asked to pay any fees even if your case is unsuccessful through no fault of your own. Thanks to the backing of Box Legal after the event insurance thousands of women affected by the PIP scandal are now able to seek legal advice without the worrying about legal costs.

comments: Comments Off