3 legal developments that probably won’t happen in 2018

There’s any number of articles around at this time of year telling us about legal developments that are coming up in the next 6 to 12 months.

From the annual increases to tax allowances, minimum wage rates, and statutory pay for sickness, maternity and other family-related absence, to much more fundamental changes such as the new gender pay gap reporting requirements to the much heralded General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) there is a lot that UK businesses need to prepare themselves for, by springtime.

But, looking further into 2018, there is also plenty of legislation that has been proposed but is still a long way from the statute books, let alone an implementation date.

The combination of the government’s surprisingly weakened position in the House of Commons since last June’s election and the inevitable priority that must be given to the legislation necessary to deliver an orderly exit from the European Union, has greatly reduced the political capital and parliamentary time available to other legislation.

The free vote that the Prime Minister had promised on repealing the 2004 Hunting Act was an early casualty in 2018, but there are a few other initiatives unlikely to get before parliament, onto the statute books and into force by the end of the year.

Tribunal fees strike back?

As recently as October, (then) Lord Chancellor David Liddington claimed the government still wanted to replace the employment tribunal fee regime struck down by the Supreme Court last summer. However, higher priorities for the Ministry of Justice and the reduced income that any fair and workable system could raise, will make quick progress on this unlikely.

LASPOA reform

Formal assessment of the impact that five years of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (2012) has had on access to justice, was finally timetabled by David Liddington last year, and is due to report by the end of April. Given the time it has taken even to get the assessment underway, the prospect of any major reform of the legislation being implemented in 2018 seems remote.

Civil Liability Act

Another piece of MoJ business that we seem to have been talking about forever, is the Civil Liability Bill mentioned in last year’s Queen’s Speech. The proposed increases to small claims court limits of £5,000 for road traffic injury claims and £2,000 for other injuries appear to be set in stone, but the faltering progress these reforms have seen since George Osborne first announced them in 2015, makes a September implementation seem less likely than April 2019.

Unlikely as these three developments may be to see legislative action this year, there is more than enough reform taking place in 2018 to keep us all busy. The uncertainty surrounding the implications of Brexit, especially what it means for employment law, should become clearer as the year progresses. But one piece of EU reform that seems certain to survive, GDPR, should be enough to keep us all busy, at least until the summer.

For and most importantly against the LASPO Bill

Various government proposals and bills seem to be having a tough time in the House of Lords, not least the rocky ride being shown to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO) which proposes cuts to legal aid and sweeping changes to civil litigation.

Currently in committee stage there have already been a few concessions made but with many peers opposed to the Bill the next report stage should be very interesting.

The last couple of weeks have seen a number of articles in the news with varying opinions on the LASPO Bill.

In the Telegraph over the weekend, the Justice Minister Ken Clarke was defending the Bill by highlighting the costs that the NHS pays in success fees to lawyers in clinical negligence cases. According to their figures:

• the number of claims rose from 5,426 in 2006/07 to 8,655 in 2010/11
• legal costs of claimants suing the NHS rose over the same period from £83 million to £195 million
• the cost of defending the actions rose from £49 million to £62 million.

Blaming the compensation culture, Clarke explained that "Taxpayers expect that the system should compensate claimants properly and reward their lawyers appropriately, not liberally.”

On the other side of the fence, the Telegraph article mentions phone-hacking victims like the Dowler family who have lobbied the government with a letter saying that “the changes will make it difficult for any but wealthy people to launch legal actions.”

Similarly, a range of charities, organisations and campaign groups are fighting back against the Bill, including AJAG and the CJA both of which ARAG is a member of.

The latest press release from the Law Society explains: “Peers in the House of Lords will discuss altering the legislation in a bid to eradicate "compensation culture" but the move would instead penalise victims of accidents, fraud, negligence and wrong-doing as well as businesses and even the Government.”

In an article in the Guardian, charities Oxfam and Amnesty International have joined the campaign on behalf of those suffering human rights abuses, warning that, “Victims of oil spills, pollution or land grabs in developing countries will no longer be able to pursue claims in British courts against multinational corporations under [these] legal reforms.”

Another hole identified in the Bill is that of the money saving aspect. Concerns have been raised by many that the calculations haven’t been done and that the cuts in legal aid and amends in civil litigation will cost more than they save. A report by King’s College London identifies that “these changes will incur new costs for the taxpayer by simply shifting the burden onto other parts of the public purse.”

In another academic report, Dr McIvor, Senior Lecturer at Birmingham Law School, accused the reforms of being “excessive and over-zealous”. She advised that “the evidence does not necessarily demonstrate that the primary source of the current high level of costs is the recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums.”

What is also surprising about the Bill is the lack of joined up thinking in the government. With Clarke, together with his counterpart, Eric Pickles, continually following the party line about saving money (Guardian article: Eric Pickles: council tax rise a 'kick in the teeth' for cash-strapped residents), if the Bill is passed and legislation implemented then Council Tax will increase. The reason for this is quite simple. Unlike the present system where Local Authorities can recover their legal costs when they successfully defend a claim, under the new proposed system, they will not unless the case is deemed to be fraudulent or frivolous, which is extremely difficult to prove. This Bill is leaving Local Authorities will their hands tied behind their back. One the one hand they will want to defend cases, but on the other they know that if they do they won’t recover costs. Claims won’t reduce, so compensation payments by local authorities will increase, meaning only one thing, a cut in services or an increase in the Council Tax.

With the report stage to come and many amendments expected to be tabled by the Lords to all sections of the Bill, the fight is not yet over for those battling for and most importantly against the LASPO Bill.

Fighting for access to justice

As a member of the Consumer Justice Alliance (CJA) we at ARAG were very interested in seeing the video that they have just produced and released on YouTube. Called ‘Fighting for access to justice’ it looks at how the CJA are campaigning against the Government’s proposals for changes to civil litigation as presented in the LASPO Bill.

More importantly victims of accidents and medical negligence are invited to discuss their experiences and how their lives have been transformed not only by their illnesses or injuries but how they managed to turn it around thanks to the compensation and support they received as a result of being able to claim through the current system.

As one victim of medical negligence describes in the film, “changing the funding regime will make it harder for people to have their claim properly investigated and also for the hospital to change the practices that allowed it to happen and deny them full compensation for the loss they have suffered.”

The risk of having to pay for legal fees should the decision go against you would have been too much of a barrier for the people speaking in the film and they all explain that this is not a risk that they could have taken.

Nigel Meurs-Raby, Chairman of the CJA concludes the film by saying, “These are real people who are real victims with injuries that are not their fault. We need to do everything that we can to make sure that this dreadful new legislation doesn’t end up on the statute book.”

Watch the video in full here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtvMdYOu3Ks&feature=related

The (un)Justice Bill

It is with regret that I am writing this blog as it means that the government has chosen to ignore the negative response that it received to both the Jackson reforms and legal aid cuts and instead implement them in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

Despite recent support from three cost judges and non-stop campaigning from groups like the Consumer Justice Alliance (CJA) and Access to Justice Group (AJAG) as well as consumers themselves, the Bill was first presented to Parliament on 21 June.

With only a few concessions, the Bill lays out plans to implement the legal aid and civil litigation changes in full. This will mean massive funding cuts in legal aid, removing provision to pursue cases in areas such as clinical negligence, debt issues and divorce cases and will leave some of the most vulnerable without suitable access to justice. In a recent Law Society Gazette article, Linda Lee, President of the Law Society, said how the Bill, “amounted to an attack on the vulnerable and was fundamentally wrong”.

On the civil litigation side, the much-criticised Jackson reforms will remove the recoverability of success fees and After-the-Event (ATE) insurance premiums, therefore shifting legal costs on to the victim.

The AJAG response to the Bill highlights in its summary the reasons why these changes will “result in a major denial of access to justice for claimants”; a few of these are detailed below:

• No win, no fee claims are not the preserve of the wealthy - 53% of claimants earn less than £25,000 per year and only 18% over £40,000


• Almost 3 million people benefitted from this form of funding over the last 5 years


• Currently, success fees and ATE insurance provide important checks and balances, acting as a brake on unmeritorious cases


• Without recoverable ATE, risk aversion by claimants will mean many perfectly good but problematical cases will fall by the wayside


• The proposed 10% uplift in general damages would not compensate claimants for losing up to 25% by way of success fee

Similarly, the CJA in its response describes how the “government’s proposals would ultimately mean that many victims, entitled to rightful compensation, would be unable to obtain proper legal representation due to the financial constraints that the new system would create.”

The Bill’s fast-tracked nature is another cause for concern. The consultation paper closed in February this year, just six weeks later Ken Clarke stood in the House of Commons to announce that the civil litigation reforms would be implemented in full. Now, just two months further down the line, the Bill has been presented to Parliament and rushed through to its second reading in just 9 days.

The worry is that the mainly negative reactions to the proposed changes have been ignored and the impact on the public has not been properly assessed. Some have expressed ‘outrage’ at the speed and Nigel Muers-Raby, CJA Chairman, comments how the government is, “pushing through sweeping and dangerous reforms with alarming speed.”

He explains further that, “by publishing such a wide-ranging Bill, it is the controversial sentencing aspects that will grab the headlines. However, buried in the Bill, you can see that thousands of injured people will suffer as a result of what is being proposed – the door to justice is effectively being slammed in their faces.”

Now that the second reading has been completed and debates have opened up on referral fees and market viability for ATE insurance in clinical negligence cases, a more in-depth analysis is required. Check back soon for our next blog - The second reading.

The importance of Before-the-Event Legal Expenses Insurance

The publication of the In Case of Emergency Report by Consumer Focus caused a few ripples in the ARAG office when it was released last month, due primarily to its negative and often inaccurate account of Before-the-Event Legal Expenses Insurance (BTE LEI). Now, a couple of weeks later, we have had time to read through it and digest the findings only to discover that our initial concerns were confirmed.

As you may know ARAG is fighting the proposed civil litigation reforms as we believe that removing the recoverability of After-the-Event (ATE) insurance premiums will significantly reduce access to justice. The Consumer Focus Report also mentions the reforms but points to BTE LEI as a contender to fill the gap left behind. Yet, the Report itself is likely to cause more damage to access to justice by focusing on the negative aspects of their findings into the BTE LEI market and describing it as an “unnecessarily complex and shadowy market”.

These are the kind of statements that create the headlines, not the fact that 64% of respondents were able to give an explanation of BTE LEI (showing relatively high product knowledge) and 48% and 16% respectively were either satisfied or very satisfied.

Below are just a few examples where we have spotted some inaccuracies in the Report:

• Accepting that knowledge of any product or service is likely to be low amongst those that do not purchase it, the fact that overall 64% of respondents were able to give an explanation of LEI is testimony that it is well understood.


• Some favourable findings concerning BTE LEI policy information were excluded from the Report. The Report states that just 4% of respondents claim they received nothing when purchasing LEI. This along with an impressive response of 70% finding their policy information reasonably clear or very clear illustrates that considerable effort is made to treating customers fairly.


• It confirms that just 15% of respondents would not know what to do to make a claim. We would contest that this compares favourably to any other form of insurance product. Furthermore, excluded from the Research are details of those groups who have a greater than average 64% response on knowing what to do to claim.


• The Research comments that most people find the process of claiming straightforward, yet the Report fails to mention this preferring to highlight the fact that it is concerning that less than half of those surveyed (who had a successful claim) were satisfied with the process for making a claim.

ARAG is not afraid to accept criticism where it is due but the findings in this report seem to have been unnecessarily skewed in order to paint an unbalanced picture.

In principle we are not against such a Report and in fact commend the objectives set out. Some of the findings as they stand are very useful and will inform some of our decision making in the future, for instance improving product information and understanding. However, the Report as it stands does more damage than good.