LASPO's deficiencies exposed yet again

Claimants and solicitors have both suffered significantly from changes introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), according to research from a legal expenses specialist.

In the 18 months since LASPO was introduced, 80 per cent of practices say that claimants' access to justice has been restricted, while almost three-quarters of those polled say that the 10 per cent uplift in general damages is insufficient to cover the additional costs claimants must now meet.

The publication of the research follows a recent report from the House of Commons Justice Select Committee criticising the reforms. The committee found that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had 'harmed access to justice' and failed to achieve three out of four of its objectives.

Anonymous interviews were carried out with senior figures working on personal injury and clinical negligence cases at 100 different firms.

A total of 68 per cent saw LASPO as having a negative impact on their practice. No one reported a positive impact from the legislative changes.

In addition, almost one-third of practices admitted to rejecting proportionately more cases than they did before the legislation was introduced.

Further, while 83 per cent of practices offer after-the-event (ATE) insurance, only half offer it on all cases, risking higher premiums due to adverse selection by those firms who cherry pick the more certain cases.

Commenting on the findings, Paul Hurley, head of ATE at ARAG UK, said: 'Where firms don't insure, the client is often left holding the risk unless the firm agrees to carry the risk themselves. This leaves the firm vulnerable to professional indemnity claims from disgruntled claimants, an area we know is on the rise..'

Evidence also emerged that showed approximately one in ten practitioners believe they are securing the additional 10 per cent uplift on all successful cases. Claimants are now recovering less in terms of damages, and only 1 per cent of practices believe the uplift fully covers the additional cost of ATE premiums and success fees.

'The results of the research are not surprising,' added Hurley. 'The reforms should have ensured that a claimant is returned to the position they were in prior to the injury, without penalty, and this is not the case. In fact, for many without the means to fund a case themselves, access to justice is simply not available.'

He continued: 'Whoever is in power following the next election, an urgent review of the reforms is required, ensuring changes are fair to all sides in the claim, not just the defendants. With legal aid only available in exceptional cases, ATE insurance is the only recognised form of protection that can safeguard the claimant against adverse costs in pursuing a claim and so the cost of premium should be recoverable from the losing party.'