PI & Clinical Negligence specific funding and costs

This Overview looks at funding and costs issues specific to personal injury and clinical negligence claims.

Conditional fee agreements

Although conditional fee agreements (CFAs) are common in personal injury and clinical negligence cases, it is worth noting that solicitors have a responsibility to discuss funding options with their clients. It is important to discuss with a client the different methods of funding available and to provide guidance as to which method would be the most appropriate given the client’s specific circumstances.

From 1 April 2013, the general rule is that the success fee and after-the-event (ATE) insurance premium are not recoverable from the losing party but they can be recoverable from the successful client.

From 1 April 2013, success fees for personal injury and clinical negligence cases are regulated by the Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, SI 2013/689 and cannot exceed 25% of general damages and past losses net of any sums recoverable by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU). The only exception is for claims that go to appeal where the cap is increased to 100% of general damages and past losses net of

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents