APIL has told the administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland that a review of the investment portfolio used to set the personal injury discount rate is “crucial”.

APIL was invited to respond to a consultation on whether any of the factors which are taken into account when setting the discount rate should be altered. This came ahead of the reviews of personal injury discount rates in both jurisdictions, which are due to start in July next year.

“It is crucial that the investment portfolio which is used to set the personal injury discount rate is looked at again with urgency. The adjustments made for the cost of advice on tax and investments also must be reviewed as injured people are paying more in reality than what is accounted for by the legislation,” said Gordon Dalyell, APIL representative for Scotland, in a press release.

 “Injured people leave a lot more money just in a bank or building society account than the 10 per cent the legislation envisages. They often delay any investments they do make for several years while they set up adaptations to their homes, buy equipment, and work out how to function day-to-day in the new version of their lives.”

Read the full press release here.

APIL welcomed the launch of a consultation last Friday (21 July) about some aspects of the fixed costs reforms which will come into effect in October.

Chief executive Mike Benner wrote to all members on Tuesday morning (26 July) to explain the work APIL has been doing behind the scenes on a potential judicial review of the reforms.

He explained that, in May, APIL wrote to both the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to raise concerns relating to the new draft rules about the extension of fixed recoverable costs and the new ‘intermediate’ track which come into effect on 1 October, and to make suggestions to mitigate their impact.

The statutory instrument to bring in the changes was laid on 24 May and, having received no substantive response from either the CPRC or the MoJ, APIL instructed solicitors on 13 June. A formal letter before action ahead of a potential judicial review was sent to the MoJ on 7 July.

The letter highlighted fundamental concerns, including the need for proper formal consultation on the inclusion of clinical negligence cases in the new regime.

APIL also called for fixed costs to be made available, and has already provided alternative drafting, for cases where they cannot be recovered from inquests or applications to restore a company to the Companies Register, for the purposes of claiming compensation from a company which has been struck off.

APIL will respond to the consultation in addition to our ongoing representations to the MoJ.

The Government will press on with plans to require parties to all small claims cases to undergo mediation, despite warnings from APIL.

APIL voiced concerns that personal injury cases are not suited to a mandatory “one size fits all” telephone mediation in a consultation response submitted last October. But the Government maintains that all standard part 7 small claims cases will be suitable for a one-hour telephone mediation, post-issue.

Parties will be required to attend the mediation appointment and are expected to engage in the mediation in good faith. If parties fail to attend the appointment, sanctions will be issued in line with failure to comply with other court rules, including costs sanctions or strike out.

APIL warned that, while methods to narrow disputes in personal injury cases are welcomed, a mandatory mediation conducted post-issue would be unlikely to be beneficial. A case in the Official Injury Claim system that has reached the stage of issuing proceedings will require a judge to decide at trial. The Government’s proposals will mean duplicated efforts, and create additional delays and costs.

The civil procedure rules will be amended to enable implementation of the policy, with the requirement to mediate being applied to specified claims only, initially.

APIL condemned the Government’s reluctance to act on lifting the time limit imposed on survivors of child sexual abuse in a letter to regional newspapers issued this week.

“This month marks eight years since the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) began. It examined the time limit issue in detail and made a clear recommendation that it should be scrapped,” said APIL joint vice president Kim Harrison in the letter.

“The law in England and Wales expects survivors to bring cases within three years of the survivor turning 18 if they are abused as a child. Scotland has already abolished the time limit - the same should happen here,” she explained.

“But still the Government wants to consult further, which is wholly unnecessary and creates further anguish for survivors.”

Members can read the full letter for publication here.

The CICA online application service “CICA Apply” will be available to all users from 15 September.

Currently, the service is available to 95 per cent of users, with the option for anyone to continue to use the existing application service. The existing application service will be closed as of 15 September, and any applications not submitted by this date will be deleted.

It is not possible at this time to save an application and return to it at a later date under CICA Apply, but this is a priority for the service going forward.

Ankle specialist needed – Sheffield/Yorkshire

How much is the court fee at stage 3

Case set down for warned period fast track

Non UK resident – need to issue

Retainer

Car v Pedestrian