Minister agrees to reform compensation law for bereaved fathers |  | Unmarried fathers are set to become eligible for bereavement damages, after ministers committed to partial reform of the law.
The announcement came after APIL’s immediate past president Matthew Tuff wrote to justice minister Sarah Sackman KC last month in response to the minister’s defence of the current law. Matthew had challenged the minister’s answer to a parliamentary question, which was in complete contradiction to the Labour Party’s position on bereavement damages while it was in opposition. One particular issue of the law raised by APIL with the minister was the exclusion of unmarried fathers from the list of eligible relatives.
But now, in a written response to APIL, Ms Sackman has said she is ‘conscious of a specific area where the law no longer reflects modern expectations’, and the Government is ‘committed to addressing eligibility for bereavement damages on the basis of the martial status of a child’s parents’.
The minister did not set out a timetable for this change, but said that legislation would be introduced ‘when parliamentary time allows’.
APIL has long campaigned for reform of bereavement damages, and has highlighted the exclusion of fathers of children classed as ‘illegitimate’ in the legislation as a particular unfair and outdated aspect of the law.
The minister added, however, that a more comprehensive review of bereavement damages is not a Government priority, but this position will be kept under review ‘as existing priorities are delivered’.
APIL will continue to campaign for this comprehensive review and reform of the law, including the need to extend further the list of relatives eligible for bereavement damages.
| | SRA to strengthen competence requirements |  | APIL supports proposals to strengthen competence requirements for solicitors.
Ten years on from reform of continuing professional development (CPD) requirements for solicitors, when the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) removed mandatory requirements to complete a certain number of training hours, it now seeks to bolster competency requirements for the profession.
APIL has responded to the SRA’s consultation on proposed measures, which closed this week.
Most members will already be undertaking the steps proposed by the SRA to maintain staff competence, and APIL welcomes the flexibility of the proposals to allow firms to continue with their own procedures.
The SRA also seeks to introduce a requirement that solicitors carry out three hours of ethics discussions annually. While training on ethics is necessary, most members will already discuss ethics within their firms, and these discussions will likely take a variety of forms that may not fit with the SRA’s proposed rigid framework.
The requirement to undertake three hours of discussions annually is overly burdensome and arbitrary. APIL told the SRA that it should instead provide general guidance on the format and agenda for ethics discussions, without being too prescriptive.
| | MPs lobbied before summer recess |  | APIL was in Westminster this week as part of lobbying work ahead of the parliamentary recess, which begins today.
The association’s new Justice Gap report, fixed costs, and its campaigns on bereavement damages and asbestos-related lung cancer were all on the agenda in discussions with MPs.
Clinical negligence and the need to protect full and fair compensation for injured patients was also high on the discussion list, with the Government still expected to unveil potential policies for clinical negligence reform in the autumn.
MPs and peers will return to Westminster on Tuesday 1 September. APIL’s campaigns team will spend the summer developing the next steps for its campaigns, including on clinical negligence, ready for when politicians return to Parliament.
| | Reform of Scottish law for asbestos victims welcomed |  | A decision to reform an unjust Scottish law so that victims of deadly cancers caused by asbestos can receive compensation is the “compassionate thing to do”, APIL has said.
“People with pleural plaques, caused by exposure to asbestos, have three years from diagnosis to make a claim for compensation. Missing this deadline means they are permanently blocked from making a claim if they later develop a more serious asbestos-related disease,” said Gordon Dalyell, APIL’s treasurer and executive committee member for Scotland in a release issued to the Scottish press.
The Scottish Government has said it will introduce legislation later this year to clarify when the three-year time limit to bring a claim begins so people diagnosed with mesothelioma will have fairer access to compensation.
“The clock for bringing a claim for an asbestos-related disease “starts ticking once a person knows they have pleural plaques”, he explained.
“They must bring a claim and include a request for provisional damages, which allows them to return to court and seek further compensation if they subsequently develop a more serious asbestos-related illness,” he added.
The press release, which can be read in full here, has been covered by Scottish Legal News, Scottish Construction News and Solicitors Journal.
- APIL’s 21st annual Asbestos Conference takes place on 15 October at the Marriott Hotel, Regents Park, London. The day includes a session about the pitfalls and best practice in asbestos litigation. Delegates can attend in person or online. To find out more and to book a place, click here.
| | Concerns raised about scale costs plans |  | Proposals to increase the county court jurisdiction in Northern Ireland would risk causing additional delays in personal injury cases, APIL warns.
The Northern Ireland County Court Rules Committee is consulting on possible changes to scale cost bands to accommodate for the increase of county court jurisdiction from £30,000 to £60,000.
APIL is concerned that an increase in cases, in addition to the complex nature of higher value personal injury claims, would create additional delays for injured and vulnerable plaintiffs.
Another issue is that not all judges in the county court will have experience dealing with clinical negligence and personal injury cases, APIL says in its response to the consultation.
If the increase is implemented, industrial disease cases, clinical negligence cases, and personal injury cases with multiple defendants should be deemed exceptional and the plaintiff should have the choice to issue those claims in the high court.
In relation to the scale costs bands, APIL calls for proportionality between the work required in cases and the remuneration of solicitors to ensure access to justice.
| | Your questions in the online forum |  | A member has used the APIL forum to ask what others would do in a case involving an injury at work, where liability is denied, regarding the timing of uploading statements to the DCP.
The defendant in the case has asked for an extension to the deadline and the member wants to know what others' approach would be?
Members are encouraged to use the forum to make contact with others for help and advice as part of their personal injury case work. Latest posts in the forum include:
| |
|