Fatal cases need removing from clinical negligence costs regime |  | APIL has pressed the Government to exclude all fatal cases from the upcoming fixed recoverable costs scheme for clinical negligence claims valued up to £25,000.
Stillbirths and newborn deaths are already excluded.
“Whilst we support the notion that cases involving baby loss need to be treated with the utmost care and sensitivity and therefore excluded from the regime, we do not understand why the same sensitivity is not extended to other tragic and avoidable deaths,” said APIL executive committee member Guy Forster.
APIL contacted the Department of Health and Social Care in October to raise the issue, which was followed up with a request for a meeting. No response has been received so far.
“It makes no sense to us, for example, why the death of a toddler with meningitis might fall within the scope of fixed costs when a neonatal death is excluded. All bereavements must be treated with the same sensitivity and compassion.
“The only reason fatal cases are ‘low-value’ is because the Government refuses to modernise the law and increase bereavement damages. The lack of concern for bereaved families is shameful,” said Guy in a release issued to the press.
Members can also read the story in Solicitors Journal and Claims Media.
APIL will stage a live webinar on the planned introduction of a low value scheme, with a focus on the commercial consequences and options for law firms, on 16 February. To book click here.
| | Government update on IICSA recommendations |  | Options for reform of the limitation period in child sexual abuse cases will be consulted on ‘shortly’, the home secretary has announced.
In a written ministerial statement published yesterday, Wednesday 10 January, home secretary James Cleverly said the Government recognised it can take years or decades for survivors of child sexual abuse to come forward and ‘feel ready to disclose their trauma’. The consultation will also examine how the existing judicial guidance in child sexual abuse cases could be strengthened.
Mr Cleverly issued the statement to provide an update to MPs on the Government’s reaction to the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).
Since IICSA published its report and recommendations in October 2022, APIL has called repeatedly for a public consultation on the details of a redress scheme, but the home secretary has so far failed to provide an update on when a consultation will be published.
It was revealed in the statement, however, that the Home Office has been ‘engaging extensively with experts’ on the establishment of a redress scheme, but there has been a lack of transparency from the Government about those engagements. APIL is making enquires.
Before the Government’s announcement this week, APIL vice president Kim Harrison set out APIL’s position on IICSA’s recommendations in the Law Society Gazette, and criticised the length of time survivors have been waiting for action.
“No redress scheme is ever perfect, but a scheme would at least give survivors of sexual abuse much-needed choice and for those who simply don’t have the option of pursuing a civil claim, some form of redress. A key element of achieving justice, for some, is to have their 'day in court' and their cases heard,” she said of the proposed redress scheme.
Read her full article here.
APIL’s abuse conference 2024, held in association with ACAL, will take place at the Marriott Marble Arch Hotel in London on Thursday 20 June. The event can also be attended virtually. For more information and to book click here.
| | Court fee increases must not create barriers to justice |  | Plans to increase 202 court and tribunal fees must not restrict justice to only those who can afford it, APIL has said.
The warning was made to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) by APIL in its response to a consultation about increasing some fees to generate up to £42 million for HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
The fees are set to rise by 10 per cent from spring this year, with court users being required to pay more towards the services they use.
“We understand an increase in fees may be necessary to continue to help fund the courts and tribunal system, however justice cannot be restricted to those with the means to pay. The court system should, in the main, be funded by central government as it benefits the whole of society,” said APIL president Jonathan Scarsbrook.
APIL has told the MoJ it is vital the Help with Fees remission scheme keeps pace with increased court fees.
“Although the Help with Fees scheme is being revised by the MoJ, there are no plans to review it regularly. This needs to happen every two years alongside reviewing court fees. This way the scheme will keep pace with any increases and particularly vulnerable people will not fall between the cracks,” he said.
Read a release issued by APIL to the press on its response here.
| | Peers to debate automated vehicles compensation |  | An amendment to a bill to make it easier for people injured by automated vehicles to claim compensation will be considered by peers.
APIL has called for the amendment to the Automated Vehicles Bill, which would change the strict liability provision for injuries caused by automated vehicles, which was introduced by the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018.
The 2018 Act allows someone injured by an automated vehicle ‘when it is driving itself’ to make a legal claim against the user’s insurance. This is rather than the injured person having to pursue what can be a costly and complex product liability claim against the manufacturer of the vehicle.
The amendment, which has been tabled by shadow transport minister Lord Liddle, would remove the words ‘when driving itself’ from the provision in the 2018 Act.
APIL has argued an injured person might not know that an automated vehicle was driving itself, and lengthy investigations might be needed to determine if this was the case. This undermines the purpose of the strict liability provision, which was introduced by the Government to avoid the need for costly and complex litigation. If the amendment is approved by peers, all an injured person would need to know is that he has been injured by an automated vehicle.
The Automated Vehicles Bill is currently being debated by peers at committee stage where amendments will be considered.
APIL’s briefing to peers on the amendment tabled by Lord Liddle can be read here.
| | Four vacancies on executive committee |  | Nominations are now open for four vacant officer positions on the APIL executive committee.
To show members what being a member of the executive committee entails, APIL’s president Jonathan Scarsbrook and past president John McQuater have spoken about their experiences on video. View them here.
The vacancies available are:
• President (one-year term)
• Two vice president positions (two-year terms)
• Secretary (two-year term)
If you are eligible for election* and have not been notified through an email from Mi-Voice, contact Jenni Scothern, APIL’s corporate governance manager at [email protected].
For more information on the roles and to submit nominations, visit our online nomination site: https://www.mi-nomination.com/apil.
Completed nominations must be submitted on or before 5pm on Tuesday 6 February. Nominations received after this time will be invalid.
*Members who are eligible for election are: legal practitioners, honorary life members or academic associates as defined in APIL's articles of association, article 30.1.1 and clause 4.5 of the APIL membership policy.
| | Concerns over Consumer Credit Act reform |  | APIL has met with HM Treasury to discuss its concerns on the Government’s plan to reform the Consumer Credit Act and replace it with Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules.
APIL highlighted the need to retain section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act in legislation, as an important route of last resort for injured claimants to obtain redress, using examples provided by APIL members.
Section 75 is particularly relevant for cases involving an international aspect, or in product liability cases, where the defendant does not have adequate insurance cover to meet the claim, or where they cannot be pursued.
At the meeting held last month, HM Treasury confirmed it recognises some provisions will likely have to remain in legislation, rather than moving to FCA rules. The feedback it has received from stakeholders, including APIL, shows there is strong support for retaining section 75.
There will be a further consultation later in 2024, which will seek more views on the retention of certain provisions in legislation.
APIL is grateful to all members who provided examples demonstrating the importance of section 75 of the CCA. Any updates on this work will be provided via Weekly News. If any members have any further comments or examples relating to the importance of section 75 that they would like to share in the meantime, please send these to Alice Taylor, [email protected].
| | Spotlight on rehabilitation, reforms, and ‘lost years’ in your member magazine |  | The growing disparity between the number of people injured due to negligence and the number of claims is examined in the latest issue of PI Focus.
In an article from APIL’s senior policy researcher John McGlade, he examines how the driving force behind recent personal injury reform has been based on the assumption that claims numbers are too high. “In reality, the number of injured victims significantly exceeds the number of claims,” he writes.
The January issue of PI Focus, which is an exclusive member benefit, is out now and has a special focus on rehabilitation. It also features advice on acting for homeless and vulnerable clients, including key considerations to improving outcomes.
The challenges of dealing with ‘lost years’ claims involving children who have suffered brain injuries and what their loss of earnings would amount to are also highlighted in this latest issue.
Read PI Focus online here.
| | CPRC consultation on simplifying the rules |  | The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CRPC) has published another consultation aimed at simplifying the rules.
APIL will respond to this consultation seeking views on amendments to CPR Part 25 (Interim Remedies and Security for Costs), and a proposed amendment to CPR Part 4 (Forms). The deadline for submissions is 9 February.
CPR Part 25 is currently supplemented by two practice directions (PDs). Under the reforms, the PDs would be dispensed with, and some of the text moved to Part 25.
APIL’s response will focus on some of the amendments to Part 25. We will highlight instances where we believe the changes do not clarify the rules and can give rise to issues in practice.
Any members with comments which could contribute to APIL’s response should contact APIL’s legal affairs assistant, Ana Ramos, at [email protected] by Wednesday 17 January.
| | Online conversations this week |  | | | Welsh members' views needed on road safety |  | Views are being sought by the Welsh Government on how to improve road safety for all types of road users.
APIL will be responding to this consultation. However, we would urge Welsh members to respond individually, as some of the consultation questions are specifically aimed at individuals’ experiences and views about the safety of Welsh roads.
The responses to this consultation will be used to create a new Strategy for Road Safety in Wales.
The consultation period will end on 31 January. Responses should be submitted through this link: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/YQQVA0/
| |
|