The small claims limit has increased from £1,000.00 to £5,000.00 in all road traffic accident cases from 31^st May 2021.  This means save for a very notional fixed sum and court fee, even if successful Claimant’s are unable to recover legal costs.

As a result, many Claimants Solicitors firms simply can no longer offer ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements.

This means that claimants will often be forced to represent themselves.  The process may seems daunting so sadly many will decide  ‘not to bother’ which in our view, seems entirely unfair.  Claimant’s Solicitors did lobby against this, sadly unsuccessfully, in our view depriving thousands of having the means to claim compensation.

There are however a number of exceptions such as:

• The claimant was a child or protected party or a “vulnerable road user”, which means, motor cyclists, cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders and those using mobility scooters;
• The claimant is a personal representative of a deceased person;
• The defendant’s vehicle was registered outside the United Kingdom.

Whilst the changes were intended to reduce the number of fraudulent claims, it sadly will leave those who otherwise would have sought compensation having suffered an injury through no fault of their own, deciding not to.

Alongside the changes to the small claims limits, the Civil Liability Act 2018 has also now received Royal Assent where the Lord Chancellor will have the power to set limits on what damages a claimant would receive for a whiplash injury. This is likely to see significantly lower awards being made than those available at present.

In addition, The Government has confirmed that it intends to increase the small claims track limit for personal injury arising out of employers’ and public liability claims from £1,000 to £1,500 from April 2022.  Whilst this is likely not to see such an significant effect on claimants as the reforms on road traffic claims, it is concerning in our view that claimants are being deterred access to justice.

Need legal advice? Contact us at enquiries@bttj.com

The post Claimants injured in RTA’s worth less than £5,000.00 no longer able to recover legal costs appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

In this case, the Claimant had waited for over five years before instructing solicitors to pursue a number of claims against various defendants arising out of a purchase of land. The claim against two of the Defendants, and estate agent and the firm for which he worked, was for professional negligence and the claim form was issued on 12 November 2012. It was served on 12 March 2013, by which point the solicitors acting for the Claimant should also have served Particulars of Claim. However, the solicitors had mistakenly believed they had another 14 days to serve the Particulars of Claim, with the effect that, in order to be allowed to serve the Particulars of Claim and pursue its claim, the Claimant would now require from the Court permission to extend time for service of the Particulars of Claim.

This was opposed by the two Defendants mentioned above because, due to the time taken for the Claimants to bring the claim, the Claimant would now be time barred from bringing fresh proceedings; in effect, if the application for an extension of time was refused, the Claimants would be unable to pursue these two Defendants now or in the future.

The application was considered in light of several new provisions to the Civil Procedure Rules, which require that the Court now take a much stronger and less tolerant approach to failures to comply with matters such as time limits.

The Judge considered various factors set out under CPR 3.9 (factors to consider when considering whether or not grant relief from sanctions), including; the interests of the administration of justice; whether the application for relief had been made promptly; whether the failure to comply was unintentional; whether there was a good reason for the failure; compliance with other rules; whether the failure to comply was caused by the party or his legal representative, and; the effect the failure had on each party.

He found the following;

1. The wholly unexplained delay in issuing proceedings was relevant, and, in general, it was not satisfactory or in the interests of justice to have claims brought in the closing weeks or months of a long limitation period. He found that, ‘the Court should adopt a stricter approach where a Claimant has, seemingly through its own choosing, left the start of proceedings until the last minute;’
2. The reason for the failure to comply with the time limit was a misreading of the rule by the Claimant’s solicitors;
3. The consequence of refusing to grant relief for the Claimant was the loss of a right to pursue the Defendants for all time, as against the consequence of granting relief for the Defendants, which amounted to the loss of an accrued limitation defence, with the result that ‘a professional man would have to endure having a claim hang over his head for much longer than would have been the case if the Claimant had pursued its case promptly and complied with the rules.’

The Judge found that, on balance, these factors were finely balanced in this case, and, all things being equal, he would have difficulty in seeing how it would be just or proportionate to allow a short delay to prevent the Claimant from pursing its claim against the Defendants.

However, the Judge found that, particularly in light of stricter approach that must now be taken by the Courts against those that fail to comply with the rules, permission to extend time should be refused because of;

1. The complete absence of an explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings;
2. The relative weakness of the Claimant’s claim against the Defendants, and;
3. The fact that part of the claim was only pleaded in vague terms.

Whilst the claim was not disallowed due the delay (and, so long as it was brought within the limitation period of six years, it could not have been), the fact of the delay likely caused the Court to adopt a stricter approach than it would have done if the claim had been brought at the earliest opportunity, or if a good reason for the delay had been advanced.

The case also underlines the new, less tolerant approach the Court will take to delays and failures to comply with rules, Order and time limits, following the Jackson report. Whilst this will certainly be true where solicitors are instructed, it is understood that Courts will adopt a similar position where litigants are in person; as such, care should be taken by litigants in person that rules and time limits are understood and complied with.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Professional advice should be taken before taking action. No liability can be accepted for any action taken or not taken as a result of this information.

The post Think you may have a claim? Don’t wait; Delay can have Serious Consequences. appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.