APIL president Guy Forster is championing the collaborative work of the PI sector and promises to highlight to policymakers that injured people must be put first.

“APIL's recent legal interventions - such as in Mazur - are examples of what can be achieved when lawyers work together,” he told The Law Society Gazette for the latest My Legal Life feature.

“Through APIL's Corporate Supporter Scheme, we can only make the sector stronger by working as strategic partners with law firms”, he went on.

“Income from the scheme funds essential research for our lobbying work, as well as legal interventions and the flagship Rebuilding Shattered Lives campaign. This is already making a difference in building positive public attitudes towards PI.”

Guy, who has more than 20 years' experience as a clinical negligence lawyer, also told the Gazette that the cost of claims to the NHS was “never far from the spotlight and the threat of reform remains”. But that the focus of policymakers should be on “preventing harm in the first place”.

He said: “Progress remains dreadfully slow. There are challenges on the NHS frontline, difficulties around staffing, culture and leadership. The NHS is huge and fragmented. If care is improved by an initiative in one trust, it is not a given that those lessons of best practice are learned elsewhere.”

• APIL’s clinical negligence conference will take place from 30 September to 2 October. The three-day conference will offer the latest legal, medical, and strategic insight needed to run stronger cases and secure better outcomes for clients. Delegates can attend in person at The Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, South Wales or virtually. To find out more and to book a place, click here.

Updated guidance on supervision arrangements following the Court of Appeal’s judgment on Mazur will be published tomorrow (Friday) the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has told APIL.

The SRA’s overall position remains the same – that firms should take a risk-based approach tailored to their circumstances.

“Each firm will be different, but hopefully our case studies will help them use their professional judgment in practice,” reads a missive received by APIL this afternoon. “You were one of a number of organisations that have helped us develop our guidance and I wanted to thank you once again for your input.”

The SRA adds that it will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to make sure the guidance is clear, practical and effective by expanding the pool of case studies which illustrate what supervision might look like in a range of scenarios.

APIL met with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to raise a number of key priorities, including concerns about the misuse of fundamental dishonesty rules by defendants.

At a meeting with members of the MoJ’s civil law policy team, the association raised that defendants are making unfounded allegations of dishonesty against claimants.

The upcoming post-implementation review of extended fixed costs was also discussed. The MoJ’s response to its stocktake of the extended fixed costs reforms is anticipated in the coming months.

It was a comprehensive meeting overall, with APIL also raising concerns about the implications of Senior Costs Judge Rowley’s judgment in JXX v Archibald, and issues relating to employers’ liability insurance. Namely, that there is a need for an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau (ELIB) which would step in if there was no employers’ liability insurance in place or if the insurance in place was invalid.

The MoJ was interested to hear further on all topics raised, and a further meeting is to be arranged to discuss JXX v Archibald.

Reforms which slashed compensation levels for whiplash claims have failed people injured on the roads and the wider public, APIL chief executive Mike Benner has reminded newspaper readers and insurance policyholders.

In a letter for publication issued to news outlets across England and Wales, Mike, pictured, said: “Insurers lobbied for the 2021 reforms insisting that people who claimed for whiplash injuries were driving up premiums. They promised the reforms would mean significant reductions in policy costs. But any motorist will tell you this never happened.”

The letter comes as the wait continues for the Government’s response to its post-implementation review of the reforms. APIL submitted to the review that any further reform to the PI sector is unwarranted, misinformed, and would exacerbate the unfairness that exists for claimants in this area since the 2021 reforms were introduced.

“Injured people were always the wrong target. Before the reforms it was clear that the burgeoning costs of repairs to vehicles was the real issue,” Mike added in the letter.

“Premiums have rocketed by 70 per cent since the reforms. Meanwhile, insurers have saved themselves £2.3 billion on injury claims.”

To read the letter in full, click here. So far it has been published in Carlisle News & Star, Swindon Advertiser, Blackpool Gazette, Lancashire Post, Bradford Argus, Lancashire Telegraph, Derby Telegraph, Oxford Mail and Falmouth Packet.

Maternity claims are the biggest part of the NHS’s compensation bill - and despite a plethora of reviews and initiatives there has not been a reduction in harm, APIL’s president says.

Guy Forster was quoted in an article in The Guardian and MSN about the family of a girl who suffered a brain injury at birth who received £28 million in damages.

He explained that maternity claims make up 11 per cent of all medical negligence claims against the NHS in England, but represent 53 per cent of the total NHS compensation bill because they involve the most serious harm.

Despite a multitude of reviews and initiatives to improve patient safety, “we’re not seeing a reduction in avoidable harm. The NHS needs to respond better when things go wrong,” he told readers.

Guy said compliance with the statutory duty of candour was sporadic across trusts, and when trusts are not transparent, lessons are not learned and harm is “repeated again and again.”

Clarity is needed on the rules on determining low-value RTA personal injury small claims cases ‘on paper’ without a hearing, APIL says.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) is consulting on changes to CPR Part 27 to implement the Small Claims Paper Determination Pilot scheme, which tested the effectiveness of deciding small claims cases on paper without a hearing.

APIL will respond to the consultation to highlight that clarity is needed in the rules in relation to the scope of CPR Part 27.

Personal injury road traffic claims were excluded from scope as they are already subject to the Official Injury Claim (OIC) process and associated rules and practice directions. Part 27, however, does not include prescriptive exclusion of RTA PI claims.

While APIL understands that Practice Direction 27B already includes its own provisions that apply or disapply the relevant subsections of Part 27, it suggests that the CPRC takes this opportunity to provide clarification within Part 27 that low-value RTA personal injury claims fall outside the scope of the paper determinations.

APIL members are encouraged to post their questions and advice for others in the online forum.

Among the latest posts are:

• Psychiatrist sought (not a neuropsychiatrist due to expense) for head injury case
• Orthopaedic surgeon needed - in or around York, Leeds, Newcastle
• CaseMatters Evo - new AI case management system - does anyone else use it?
• DCP and without prejudice correspondence
• Court fee in claim on behalf of a deceased's estate
• DCP - defendant-nominated solicitors after issue but before service procedure query
• CICA - counsel recomendation sought for complex brain injury case
• Personal Injury Trust
• Does a dependency award survive for benefit of estate where dependant dies before settled?