PI Brief Update

FREE BOOK CHAPTER: 'RTA Personal Injury Claims Post Jackson: A Practical Guide' by Andrew Mckie

10/11/14. This is a free chapter from the new book 'RTA Personal Injury Claims Post Jackson: A Practical Guide' by Andrew Mckie,  A clear but comprehensive guide to road traffic accident personal injury claims. Covers issues in relation to RTA claims dealing with such issues as the portal, fixed costs, liability, indemnity, vicarious liability, causation, litigation tactics, investigating quantum, vehicle related damages and head of special damages, commonly found in RTA cases and in particular focuses on the day-to-day issues in practice, one encounters with such cases.

PREFACE

The Law of RTA personal injury claims arguably is rather settled. There are a number of practitioner texts in this area spanning 20 years or so but there are relatively few practical guides.

However, it may be argued that all this how now changed with the Post Jackson reforms that came into effect in July 2013. RTA practitioners were well used to fixed costs in the portal and predictive costs, but the July 2013 changes have introduced fixed costs into litigated cases. These cases also no longer benefit from 100% uplift under conditional fee agreement post April 2013.

It may be argued therefore, that this type of litigation has therefore become much less attractive to personal injury law firms and the introduction of fixed recoverable costs raises real questions about access to justice.

The insurance industry will no doubt argue that the need for fixed costs litigated cases reduces fraud and lowers motor premiums, but a year into the changes, there appears to be little evidence of this, and moreover, it now raises real questions as to access to justice.

The insurance industry will argue that the majority of injuries from these types of accidents are low value, run of the mill whiplash cases, and there is no longer a need for Solicitors to undertake the work and thus cases can be run for a few hundred pounds.

However, this of course excludes the serious and complex injury cases, cases involving complex credit hire arguments, causation disputes, cases involving indemnity disputes or multiple vehicles accidents, all parties blaming each other. It may be argued that it is more important than ever that with the Jackson changes, these clients are not denied access to justice.

The aim of this book is to provide a clear but comprehensive guide to this area of practice, that can be utilised by practitioners on a day-to-day basis, in claimant and defendant practice.

The book has a focus on running RTA in an efficient way post Jackson, spotting the winners and vetting the losing claims early on.

The book will aim to cover issues in relation to RTA claims dealing with such issues as the Portal, Fixed Costs, Liability, Indemnity, Vicarious Liability, Causation, Litigation Tactics, Investigating Quantum, Vehicle Related Damages and Head of Special Damages, commonly found in RTA cases and in particular focuses on the day to day issues in practice, one encounters with such cases.

I would encourage the reader to ‘dip in and out’ of the book as and when required.

I wish to thank Tim Kevan of Law Brief publishing for providing me with the opportunity to write this book and for the PI Brief update website for publishing relevant sections.

ANDREW MCKIE
PERSONAL INJURY BARRISTER
OCTOBER 2014

'RTA Personal Injury Claims Post-Jackson: A Practical Guide' by Andrew Mckie ISBN: 978-0-9575530-7-1 Published: February 2015 Price: £49.99 Click here to order now

CHAPTER ONE - THE PORTALS AND PORTAL COSTS

The Low Value Portals in Personal Injury Litigation first came into place in 2010. Since then, they arguably have transformed Low Value Personal Injury Litigation, decreasing costs and in some cases, increasing efficiency of the way this type of litigation is conducted.

Some personal injury firms seek to exit claims from the Portal, whereas others seeks to leave as many claims as possible within the Portal, for cash flow purposes. The question therefore is what is likely to be of most benefit and in the best interests of the Claimant? This Chapter seeks to examine the Low Value Portals and in particular the changes that came into effect in July 2013, and how these have effected this type of litigation. This Chapter concentrates on cases entering into the Portal post July 2013.

The full protocols referred to below can be found at:- http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/pre-action-protocol-for-low-value-personal-injury-claims-in-road-traffic-accidents-31-july-2013

Admissions in the Protocol

Admissions in the portal are governed by section 1.1 of the Protocol. This means that:

1.1 In this Protocol—

(1) ‘admission of liability’ means the defendant admits that—

(a) the accident occurred;

(b) the accident was caused by the defendant’s breach of duty;

(c) the defendant caused some loss to the claimant, the nature and extent of which is not admitted; and

(d) the defendant has no accrued defence to the claim under the Limitation Act 1980;

This means in practice that when an admission is made, the Defendant insurer admits breach of duty and some element of causation, and if the Defendant later seeks to resile from the admission, the Court’s permission will be required, once proceedings are commenced. The Claimant will still have to prove causation (dealt with in later Chapters). Section 1.1 means that the Defendant, making an admission cannot later argue the injury was caused elsewhere i.e in another incident.

CPR 14 sets out in relation to pre action admissions in the Portal :-

14.1B

(1) This rule applies to a pre-action admission made in a case to which the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (‘the RTA Protocol’) or the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims (‘the EL/PL Protocol’) applies.

(2) The defendant may, by giving notice in writing withdraw an admission of causation –

(a) before commencement of proceedings –

(i) during the initial consideration period (or any extension to that period) as defined in the relevant Protocol; or

(ii) at any time if the person to whom the admission was made agrees; or

(b) after commencement of proceedings –

(i) if all the parties to the proceedings consent; or

(ii) with the permission of the court.

(3) The defendant may, by giving notice in writing withdraw any other pre-action admission after commencement of proceedings –

(a) if all the parties to the proceedings consent; or

(b) with the permission of the court.

(4) An application under rule 14.1B(2)(b)(ii) or (3)(b) to withdraw a pre-action admission must be made in accordance with Part 23.

Value of Claims in the Portal and Costs

The section sets out:-

1) The ‘Protocol upper limit’ is—

(a) £25,000 where the accident occurred on or after 31 July 2013; or

(b) £10,000 where the accident occurred on or after 30 April 2010 and before 31July 2013,

on a full liability basis including pecuniary losses but excluding interest.

4.1 This Protocol applies where—

(1) a claim for damages arises from a road traffic accident where the CNF is submitted on or after 31st July 2013;

(2) the claim includes damages in respect of personal injury;

(3) the claimant values the claim at no more than the Protocol upper limit; and

This therefore is likely to mean in practice that the majority of RTA claims are now likely to be caught within these provisions. The difficulty with this for Claimant Solicitors is the limit of £25,000 excludes clams for vehicle related damages, and thus the majority of claims fall within the portals.

The costs for Low Value Portal claims introduced in 2010 arguably were workable, and left enough profit for the Claimant Lawyer, but since July 2013, these have been substantially reduced. These are now set out as follows from CPR 45:-

Fixed costs in relation to the RTA Protocol
Where the value of the claim for damages is not more than £10,000		Where the value of the claim for damages is more than £10,000, but not more than £25,000
Stage 1 fixed costs	£200	Stage 1 fixed costs	£200
Stage 2 fixed costs	£300	Stage 2 fixed costs	£600
Stage 3 - Type A fixed costs	£250	Stage 3 - Type A fixed costs	£250
Stage 3 - Type B fixed costs	£250	Stage 3 - Type B fixed costs	£250
Stage 3 - Type C fixed costs	£150	Stage 3 - Type C fixed costs	£150

Thus, it can be argued that it is now incredibly difficult to undertake what can be very complex RTA cases involving fractures, serious PTSD, complex care and loss of earnings claims, at such low costs.

The question therefore falls, how can this type of work now be undertaken efficiently?

The answer to the question may lie in the following points:-

1. Ensure the correct level of fee earner is undertaking the work. There is now little point in Grade A fee earners undertaking Low Value cases. The majority of Portal cases now calls for Paralegals to undertake the work to make it efficient.

2. More experienced fee earners should be undertaking the higher value and more complex portal cases. However, one has to cautious to ensure that the fee earner undertaking the work has appropriate supervision. One can make the mistake that dealing with portal work is straightforward. One has to remember that £25,000 personal injury claims, if litigated could be in the multi track.

3. Make sure you have a case management system for Portal Cases. This is particularly useful for exiting claims from the Portal, which often requires the user to exit the claim from the Portal. Proclaim’s A2A software is very efficient for Low Value Portal routine cases, and the package of letters includes all the relevant correspondence, which is required when working to very tight fees.

4. Ensure relevant cases exit the Portal at the relevant points (dealt with below). It should be borne in mind, that the onus is often on the Claimant Solicitor to exit the claim from the Portal at the relevant stage.

5. Ensure that the Claimant is charged the maximum success fee applicable under LASPO (dealt with below).

Exit Points from the Portals.

There may be certain points in the case when the claim needs to exit the Low Value Portal.

When the claim exits the portal it falls into the former pre action protocol which can be located at:-

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_pic

There are a number of ways in which a claim may exit the Low Value Portal for Post 31 July 2013 cases and these are set out as follows:-

1. If proceedings were started the small claims track would not be the normal track for that claim. The claim will not commence in the Low Value Portal.

2. This Protocol / Portal does not apply to a claim—

(1) in respect of a breach of duty owed to a road user by a person who is not a road user;

(2) made to the MIB pursuant to the Untraced Drivers' Agreement 2003 or any subsequent or supplementary Untraced Drivers’ Agreements;

(3) where the claimant or defendant acts as personal representative of a deceased person;

(4) where the claimant or defendant is a protected party as defined in rule 21.1(2);

(5) where the claimant is bankrupt; or

(6) where the defendant’s vehicle is registered outside the United Kingdom.

c) 6.15 The claim will no longer continue under this Protocol where the defendant within the period in paragraph 6.11 or 6.13—

(1) makes an admission of liability but alleges contributory negligence (other than in relation to the claimant’s admitted failure to wear a seat belt);

(2) does not complete and send the CNF response;

(3) does not admit liability; or

d) Where the defendant fails to pay the Stage 1 fixed recoverable costs within the period specified in paragraph 6.18 the claimant may give written notice that the claim will no longer continue under the Protocol. Unless the claimant’s notice is sent to the defendant within 10 days after the expiry of the period in paragraph 6.18 the claim will continue under this Protocol.

e) 7.40 Where the defendant does not respond within the initial consideration period (or any extension agreed under paragraph 7.36), the claim will no longer continue under this Protocol and the claimant may start proceedings under Part 7 of the CPR.

f) 7.46 Where a party withdraws an offer made in the Stage 2 Settlement Pack Form after the total consideration period or further consideration period, the claim will no longer continue under this Protocol and the claimant may start proceedings under Part 7 of the CPR.

g) Non-settlement payment by the defendant at the end of Stage 2. Where the defendant does not comply with paragraphs 7.72 or 7.74 the claimant may give written notice that the claim will no longer continue under this Protocol and start proceedings under Part 7 of the CPR.

There is also a catch up provision which sets out:-

7.76 Where the claimant gives notice to the defendant that the claim is unsuitable for this Protocol (for example, because there are complex issues of fact or law) then the claim will no longer continue under this Protocol. However, where the court considers that the claimant acted unreasonably in giving such notice it will award no more than the fixed costs in rule 45.18.

Claimant Solicitors should be wary of this provision. Case Law has shown that the Courts are not readily prepared to entertain arguments that cases are unsuitable for the Portal. It may be argued that the following examples may be where a claim could exit the Portal under this rule, but if a claim is exited unreasonably the Claimant will be limited to fixed costs, if the Court decides that it should have stayed within the Portal.

The following may be some examples where an exit may be appropriate, under this rule:-

1. Paragraph 5.1 sets out:-

5.1 Subject to paragraph 6.1(2), where the Protocol requires information to be sent to a party it must be sent via www.claimsportal.org.uk (or any other Portal address that may be prescribed from time to time). The claimant will give an e-mail address for contact in the Claim Notification Form (‘CNF’). All written communications not required by the Protocol must be sent by e-mail.

Some insurance companies still attempt to settle claims and/ or communicate by telephone or in writing (post). If such attempts are made, it is argued that they should be resisted as the Portal is quite clear that all communications should be via email. If the Defendant assists on other methods of communication, the Claimant Solicitor could invite them to consent to exit the portal.

2. Some insurers use third party agencies to deal with various aspects of a claim such as the credit hire or a loss of earnings claim. It may be argued that the Claimant lawyer, inside a Portal claim, should not have to deal with these third party agencies or provide / information disclosure outside the Portal. If the Defendant insurer insists, it can be argued the claim could exit the Portal. The reason for this is that certainly for vehicle related damages (additional damages), these must be included in the Stage settlement pack:-

Vehicle related damages - additional damages

7.51 Paragraph 7.52 applies where at the end of the relevant period in paragraphs 7.35 to 7.37 the claim (“the original damages”) has not settled and there remain vehicle related damages (“the additional damages”) being dealt with by a third party separate from the claim. The original damages include all elements of the claim in the existing Stage 2 Settlement Pack.

7.52 Where paragraph 7.51 applies the claimant must, in relation to the additional damages—

(1) notify the defendant that this separate claim is being considered;

(2) obtain all relevant information from the third party; and

(3) make a separate offer by amending the Stage 2 Settlement Pack Form.

c) There was formally an argument that the process could not deal with for example complex credit hire claims. It can be argued that this has now changed with the Post July 2013 changes given that witness statements can now be used as Part of the Stage 2 process see:-

7.11 In most cases, witness statements, whether from the claimant or otherwise, will not be, required. One or more statements may, however, be provided where reasonably required to value the claim.

There will be very few cases that few so complex they cannot be dealt with in the Portal. It can be argued that very complex credit hire arguments over for example Consumer Credit Regulations, may not be suitable, but this will apply to very few cases.

Other Portal Problems – Costs of Quantifying injuries

A major issue for may Claimant Lawyers, is the ability to utilise Counsel to value more significant claims. This may encompass claims arising out of high speed and serious road traffic accidents, with complex injuries. However, the rules allow very limited use of Counsel in certain circumstances as follows:-

Specialist legal advice

7.10 In most cases under this Protocol, it is expected that the claimant’s legal representative will be able to value the claim. In some cases with a value of more than £10,000 (excluding vehicle related damages), an additional advice from a specialist solicitor or from counsel may be justified where it is reasonably required to value the claim.

Costs of expert medical and non-medical reports and specialist legal advice obtained

7.31

(1) Where the claimant obtains more than one expert report or an advice from a specialist solicitor or counsel—

(a) the defendant at the end of Stage 2 may refuse to pay; or

(b) the court at Stage 3 may refuse to allow,

the costs of any report or advice not reasonably required.

(2) Therefore, where the claimant obtains more than one expert report or obtains an advice from a specialist solicitor or counsel—

(a) the claimant should explain in the Stage 2 Settlement Pack why they obtained a further report or such advice; and

(b) if relevant, the defendant should in the Stage 2 Settlement Pack identify the report or reports or advice for which they will not pay and explain why they will not pay for that report or reports or advice.

One concerning element of modern personal injury litigation, is that since the Jackson reforms, there are number of law firms that have started offering the very specific services of seeing whether a Solicitor has been negligent in valuing a personal injury claim. It may be argued that with the increase in the threshold for portal claims to £25,000, factory processed litigation in some circumstances and more junior fee earner undertaking higher value work, this will inevitably lead to more negligence claims.

It may be a false economy therefore to avoid utilising Counsel, simply for costs purposes. Many Chambers post Jackson are now offering fixed fee advices on quantum, at very reasonable rates. An advice on quantum can of course can be and argued should be obtained on infant cases.

The October 2014 Changes – Fixed Cost Medical Reports

The insurance industry, not content with the implementation of the Portal in 2010 and then fixed fees in fast track cases in 2013, have now pushed for further changes in relation to Portal cases, to further reduce costs and fraud.

The 1 October 2014 changes can be summarised as follows, and seek to limit the costs of medical expert reports in these cases :-

(2A) In a soft tissue injury claim to which the RTA Protocol applies, the only sums (exclusive of VAT) that are recoverable in respect of the cost of obtaining a fixed cost medical report or medical records are as follows—

(a) obtaining the first report from any expert permitted under 1.1(12) of the RTA Protocol: £180;

(b) obtaining a further report where justified from one of the following disciplines—

(i) Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon (inclusive of a review of medical records where applicable): £420;

(ii) Consultant in Accident and Emergency Medicine: £360;

(iii) General Practitioner registered with the General Medical Council: £180; or

(iv) Physiotherapist registered with the Health and Care Professions Council: £180;

(c) obtaining medical records: no more than £30 plus the direct cost from the holder of the records, and limited to £80 in total for each set of records required. Where relevant records are required from more than one holder of records, the fixed fee applies to each set of records required;

(d) addendum report on medical records (except by Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon): £50; and

(e) answer to questions under Part 35: £80.

The rules further go onto state:-

(2B) Save in exceptional circumstances, no fee may be allowed for the cost of obtaining a report from a medical expert who—

(a) has provided treatment to the claimant;

(b) is associated with any person who has provided treatment; or

(c) proposes or recommends that they or an associate provide treatment.

(2C) The cost of obtaining a further report from an expert not listed in paragraph (2A)(b) is not fixed, but the use of that expert and the cost must be justified.

Thus, the Claimant is limited to the type of experts he is able to instruct. It is now a common feature of Portal cases, because of the £25,000 limit that more than one medical expert will be required in some cases. It is important to bear the following rule in mind, when considering the costs of subsequent experts reports: -

Subsequent medical reports

7.8 A subsequent medical report from an expert who has already reported must be justified. A report may be justified where—

(1) the first medical report recommends that further time is required before a prognosis of the claimant’s injuries can be determined; or

(2) the claimant is receiving continuing treatment; or

(3) the claimant has not recovered as expected in the original prognosis.

7.8A In a soft tissue injury claim—

(1) it is expected that only one medical report will be required; and

(2) a further medical report, whether from the first expert instructed or from an expert in another discipline, will only be justified where—

(a) it is recommended in the first expert's report; and

(b) that report has first been disclosed to the defendant.

It will therefore be important for the Claimant to comply with the rules, or the costs of expensive medical reports may not be recovered.

Disbursements in the RTA Portal.

Disbursements in the Low Value Portal are governed by CPR 45 which sets out:-

Disbursements

45.19

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2A) to (2E), the court –

(a) may allow a claim for a disbursement of a type mentioned in paragraphs (2) or (3); but

(b) will not allow a claim for any other type of disbursement.

(2) In a claim to which either the RTA Protocol or EL/PL Protocol applies, the disbursements referred to in paragraph (1) are –

(a) the cost of obtaining –

(i) medical records;

(ii) a medical report or reports or non-medical expert reports as provided for in the relevant Protocol;

(aa) Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority;

(bb) Motor Insurance Database;

(b) court fees as a result of Part 21 being applicable;

(c) court fees payable where proceedings are started as a result of a limitation period that is about to expire;

(d) court fees in respect of the Stage 3 Procedure; and

(e) any other disbursement that has arisen due to a particular feature of the dispute.

One interesting features that does arise is in relation to Claimant’s whose first language is not English, for example if you need to translate the medical report, CNF, Stage 3 pack etc. In the case of JERZY MADEJ v ARKADIUSZ MACISZYN (2013),the Court decided that an interpreters fee fell within the meaning of CPR 45.19 (e) and was thus recoverable.

Interim Payments

It may be argued that where one had a seriously injured client, for example an extended whiplash claim with a prognosis of 18 months or so, the Claimant should always be advised to wait until the end of the prognosis period before settling the claim, to see if he or she recovers in accordance with the prognosis period in the medical report. Many Claimants however, against advice will often seek to take the money, as they need it because the accident has caused financial hardship. An interim payment can become incredibly useful in such circumstances whilst the Claimant waits to see how the injuries settle down and to ensure the Claimant is recovered before a claim is settled. . The rules set out as follows:-

7.12 Where the claimant needs to obtain a subsequent expert medical report or a non-medical report, the parties should agree to stay the process in this Protocol for a suitable period. The claimant may then request an interim payment in accordance with paragraphs 7.13 to 7.16.

Request for an interim payment

7.13 Where the claimant requests an interim payment of £1,000, the defendant should make an interim payment to the claimant in accordance with paragraph 7.18.

7.14 The claimant must send to the defendant the Interim Settlement Pack and initial medical report(s) (including any recommendation that a subsequent medical report is justified) in order to request the interim payment.

7.15 The claimant must also send evidence of pecuniary losses and disbursements. This will assist the defendant in considering whether to make an offer to settle the claim.

7.16 Where an interim payment of more than £1,000 is requested the claimant must specify in the Interim Settlement Pack the amount requested, the heads of damage which are the subject of the request and the reasons for the request.

7.17 Unless the parties agree otherwise—

(a) the interim payment of £1,000 is only in relation to general damages; and

(b) where more than £1,000 is requested by the claimant, the amount in excess of £1,000 is only in relation to pecuniary losses.

Interim payment of £1,000

7.18 Where paragraph 7.13 applies the defendant must pay £1,000 within 10 days of receiving the Interim Settlement Pack.

Interim payment of more than £1,000

7.19 Subject to paragraphs 7.24 and 7.25, where the claimant has requested an interim payment of more than £1,000 the defendant must pay—

(1) the full amount requested less any deductible amount which is payable to the CRU;

(2) the amount of £1,000; or

(3) some other amount of more than £1,000 but less than the amount requested by the claimant,

within 15 days of receiving the Interim Settlement Pack.

7.20 Where a payment is made under paragraphs 7.19(2) or (3) the defendant must briefly explain in the Interim Settlement Pack why the full amount requested by the claimant is not agreed.

7.21 Where the claim is valued at more than £10,000 the claimant may use the procedure at paragraphs 7.13 to 7.20 to request more than one interim payment.

7.22 Nothing in this Protocol is intended to affect the provisions contained in the Rehabilitation Code.

It should be borne in mind that this process may only be utilised where there is a need for a further report. If the Defendant fails to make the interim payment, the Claimant may exit the claim from the process, subject to the following provisions:-

7.28 Where the defendant does not comply with paragraphs 7.18 or 7.19 the claimant may start proceedings under Part 7 of the CPR and apply to the court for an interim payment in those proceedings.

7.29 Where the defendant does comply with paragraph 7.19(2) or (3) but the claimant is not content with the amount paid, the claimant may still start proceedings. However, the court will order the defendant to pay no more than the Stage 2 fixed costs where the court awards an interim payment of no more than the amount offered by the defendant or the court makes no award.

7.30 Where paragraph 7.28 or 7.29 applies the claimant must give notice to the defendant that the claim will no longer continue under this Protocol. Unless the claimant’s notice is sent to the defendant within 10 days after the expiry of the period in paragraphs 7.18, 7.19 or 7.25 as appropriate, the claim will continue under this Protocol.

Solicitor CFA’s Post April 2013

As part of this Chapter it is helpful to note the provisions for Conditional Fee Agreements Post April 2013 and success fees from the Claimant post April 2013. They are set out as follows in LASPO 2012 as follows:-

44

Conditional fee agreements: success fees

(4B)

The additional conditions are that—

(a)

the agreement must provide that the success fee is subject to a maximum limit,

(b)

the maximum limit must be expressed as a percentage of the descriptions of damages awarded in the proceedings that are specified in the agreement,

(c)

that percentage must not exceed the percentage specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor in relation to the proceedings or calculated in a manner so specified, and

(d)

those descriptions of damages may only include descriptions of damages specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor in relation to the proceedings.”

This should be read in conjunction with the Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, which sets out:-

Specified proceedings

4. A claim for personal injuries shall be proceedings specified for the purpose of section 58(4A)(b) of the Act.

Amount of success fee in specified proceedings

5. (1) In relation to the proceedings specified in article 4, the percentage prescribed for the purposes of section 58(4B)(c) of the Act is—

(a)

in proceedings at first instance, 25%; and

(b)

in all other proceedings, 100%.

(2) The descriptions of damages specified for the purposes of section 58(4B)(d) of the Act are—

(a)

general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity; and

(b)

damages for pecuniary loss, other than future pecuniary loss,

net of any sums recoverable by the Compensation Recovery Unit of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Thus, in post April 2013 proceedings, the rules suggests that the Solicitor can charge the Claimant 25% of past pecuniary losses and general damages recovered, but not future losses and thus the explanatory note sets out in the order:-

Notwithstanding the effect of article 3, section 58(4B) of the 1990 Act, enables the Lord Chancellor, in respect of proceedings specified by order under section 58(4A), to effectively cap the lawyer’s success fee at a percentage of specified damages awarded to the client. Article 5 provides that, in a claim for personal injuries, the success fee shall be limited to a maximum of 25% of the damages awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and pecuniary loss, other than future pecuniary loss and net of any sums recoverable by the Compensation Recovery Unit, inclusive of VAT.

Conclusions

Thus the post Jackson world of RTA claims and in particular those Solicitors with a specialism in Portal claim, is arguably a tough market place for those Solicitors. 25% success fees do take away some of the pain, and can make this work profitable, but even so, the firms who are likely survive are the ones who have efficient workflows, case management system and in particular of supervision of Paralegals undertaking low value work. With more junior staff undertaking work at this level, with higher value Portal cases and larger caseloads, it is argued there must be a case for effective use of Counsel on fixed fees in relation to quantum to avoid negligence claims, as well as effective supervision.

The remainder of this book focuses on fixed fee RTA claim, once they drop out of the Low Value Portal and running cases effectively and efficiently within a fixed costs environment.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/bluestocking

Book and Video Masterclass

Click on the link below to order the full book, and note that all chapters will also be available online free to PIBULJ subscribers.

There is also a video masterclass based on the material in this book.  This is also currently free to PIBULJ subscribers, or can be purchased.  Click the link below for further information.

 

PIBULJ.TV - masterclasses from the experts

Episode 5: 'RTA Personal Injury: a 2015 Update - What Is Happening to PI in 2015?' by Andrew Mckie Andrew Mckie from Clerksroom presents a 35 minute guide to the latest developments in RTA personal injury claims. Covers fundamental dishonesty, inducements in PI cases, CUE for claimants, pre-medical offers, MedCo, and further problems. Watch a sample for free now!

 

'RTA Personal Injury Claims Post-Jackson: A Practical Guide' by Andrew Mckie ISBN: 978-0-9575530-7-1 Publication due: February 2015 Price: £49.99 Click here to order now