Claimant lawyers have won a reprieve over small claims

Claimant lawyers have lived in fear of an increase in the small claims limit for some years, '¨so it was a relief when justice secretary Chris Grayling decided last month that '¨he would leave it at the '¨current level - at least for the time being.

This sword of Damocles has worked in getting the claimant bodies talking and agreeing matter with the defendant bodies. An example of this approach is the level of fees and the rules for the original RTA portal launched in April 2010. It is generally the feeling that this agreement prevented the small claims limit being raised and was considered the lesser of two evils by many.

Whiplash backlash

In February 2012, following an MoJ consultation, it was decided that the smalls claims track limit would double from £5,000 to £10,000 in non-personal injury cases but it left alone the small claims track for personal injury cases. It was therefore with '¨some surprise that a further review of the small claims limit with a focus also on whiplash cases was announced within months of this last consultation being concluded.

Some claimants point to the suitably named 'whiplash summit' at around the same time as this last consultation ended to be the spark for renewed claims at raising the small claims limit. It was the source of some controversy that no one from the claimant side was invited to attend and fears were raised of insurers influencing policy.

It is perhaps of significance that with the implementation of reforms including the huge extension remit of the portal and the slashing of the fees, that this time the claimant bodies did not act in fear of the increase to the small claims limit being raised. Instead, a joint judicial review by APIL and MASS was launched, which, while unsuccessful, possibly helped towards last month's decision, as it was announced not to increase the limit, at least for the moment.

The more cynical claimant lawyer might think that the '¨MoJ may first wish to focus on the reforms they are considering to the judicial review process itself, the timing of which was announced shortly after the APIL and MASS judicial review proceedings.

Pre-medical reports

At the start of the year I attended a meeting which was part of the consultation titled 'Reducing the number and cost of whiplash claims' together with about 15 others from the claimant sector. This took place in a small room at the MoJ on a rainy day in January.

What was apparent was that the MoJ spokesmen seemed to have such an inaccurate view of how claimant lawyers deal with these cases. For example, on talking about the introduction of medical panels and questioning what they will be able to add, the MoJ spokesman seemed to think that the current practice was for the client's own GP to report. He was pushing for the need for independent evidence which of course is already in place and governed by Part 35 of the CPR. But good points were put forward about pre-medical offers and how they add to insurers' own statistics on cases and many such cases would fall away. Concern was raised on the defendants' fraud statistics, as they have a wider remit than proven fraudulent cases. It was also noted they if the limit was raised then lower value cases would be the new PPI and that claims management companies would rush in to fill the void and the problem would worsen.

It may be coincidence however it seems appropriate to give the MoJ credit here for listening to concerns of the claimant representatives in that room and the wider consultation responses as these announcements do appear to mirror what was discussed.

The MoJ announced that, for the moment, the limit will remain the same, that they were attracted to the medical panel idea, and that they were working on this and other proposals. They called for the end to insurer pre-medical offers, stating that there should be a rule to ensure that a medical examination and report is needed for any successful personal injury payment. It is of note that the MoJ acknowledged that they did not want to see CMCs filling the void - a serious concern for claimant lawyers - and it does seem that the arguments put forward by claimants have, for the time being at least, been listened to. SJ