Legal Costs Must Not Be Cut at the Expense of Access to Justice

LONDON, February 14, 2013 /PRNewswire/ –

Karl Tonks, a partner with Fentons Personal Injury Solicitors
[http://www.fentons.co.uk/about-us/personal-injury-solicitors ] LLP and president of the
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), has told his members he fears that “costs
will be cut at the expense of compromising access to justice, if not denying it altogether
for some claimants.”

Speaking at the annual President’s Lunch in London, Karl said the Government’s stated
purpose in its civil justice reform agenda – to cut costs, without damaging access to
justice – was a worthy aim. But he said in the aggressive rush to reform, the rights of
injured people to independent legal advice and fair compensation were being overlooked.

“Vulnerable people are going to suffer – of that I have no doubt,” he said. “In any
process of change worth doing, it’s worth taking the time to consider all the options and
to do it well for the long term. For example the recently announced new high-speed rail
link to Manchester and Leeds will take as long as 20 years to put into place – presumably
because the Government wants to get it right. I am not suggesting we postpone civil
justice change for that long, but surely a system which serves vulnerable, injured people
deserves at least the same kind of careful, balanced consideration?”

Karl said he was pleased the Government had now recognised that it needed to pause and
reconsider the timetable for further reforms which would extend the current scheme dealing
with compensation for road traffic injuries to other types of cases. “But it’s a huge
personal regret to me that it’s taken the spectre of APIL’s judicial review proceedings to
make the Government come to that view,” he said. “Worse still, now we have been forced
actually to issue proceedings about the way the Government reached its conclusions on the
need to cut costs, it has been reported that an arbitrary increase of the small claims
court limit to GBP15,000 for all types of case, is being considered. This would force
seriously injured people into a system which is fit only for settling disputes about
faulty goods and services, not for dealing with complex matters of law.

“I find it hard to accept that a responsible Government would react in such an
irrational and indiscriminate way to a legitimate legal challenge. I can only hope that
the reports are unfounded, as such a move would amount to a side-swipe at injured people
as punishment for an attempt to exercise our democratic right to scrutinise our
Government, which is a fundamental part of the rule of law.”

Karl also used his address to take the Government to task over another of its “rushed
and dangerous” reforms, namely those proposed in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Bill. “A late amendment was brought forward without any consultation, which seeks to
change the law, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 relating to compensation for
accidents at work, by removing civil liability for breach of regulations,” he said. “That
effectively takes the legal position back to how it was at the end of the 19th century.”

Karl said despite intentions, the proposed change would affect every future claim for
compensation for an accident at work. “The Government’s own impact assessment identifies
that it had two options – to do a proper job and look at each and every provision relating
to strict liability; or to take the simple (and I would say lazy and reckless) approach,
which will affect tens of thousands of cases, tilting the playing field in favour of
employers, who hold all the cards, and against vulnerable workers, who hold none.

“If the Government’s proposal goes through, an injured worker will have to gather the
evidence they need to prove that their employer has been negligent. How can they be
expected to do that when the employer holds all the knowledge about the firm and the
worker holds none? What if the injured person was rendered unconscious in the accident and
can’t recollect what has happened? What if they were killed in the accident and their
family have to gather the evidence? How is that fair?”

He urged everyone involved in the process of formulating the reforms to make the time
to gather and look at the evidence.

“These reforms will be with us for many years so we must take the time to get them
right,” he said. “The Government has recently shown that it can listen and respond to
concerns in relation to its reform of the GCSE exam, and it needs to show the same
willingness to listen in relation to civil justice. It would be irresponsible and wrong to
reform and change in haste and then force injured victims to repent at leisure.

“I believe we have a responsibility to work together to ensure that reform, if it is
needed, is introduced with thought and care. This is all too important to get wrong.”

SOURCE Fentons