I was recently asked by a colleague how the proposed reforms to the personal injury sector would have affected our clients, had they been in place one or two years ago. One case sprang to mind that really shows how the increase to the small claims limit would have prevented my client – an elderly lady who suffered multiple injuries after falling on a defective council-owned footpath – having access to compensation.
Mrs A*, who is in her seventies, was walking her dog in local woods when she fell on the footpath. She suffered bruised ribs, a grazed chin, headaches, a back injury and developed a loss of confidence as well as flashbacks of the accident. For two months, she was unable to carry out basic housework so her daughter came round to help her on a daily basis. Her daughter also did her weekly shopping and took her to hospital for two appointments. Mrs. A had to use her limited savings to pay for a gardener, as she was unable to carry out these tasks herself.
This case was far from straightforward and involved complex issues of law regarding ownership of the path. I have a great deal of experience in dealing with such cases and although the local Council initially denied liability, its insurers eventually agreed to compensate my client. I worked closely with Mrs. A to understand the extent and impact of her injuries and she was delighted to receive several thousands of pounds by way of damages. She was able to reward her daughter for the valuable assistance she had provided and repay into her savings the money she’d spent on a gardener.
If the small claims limit had been increased to £5000, Mrs. A would probably have had to choose between representing herself or instructing a solicitor and agreeing a fixed fee amount, regardless of whether or not she was successful in her claim. This is because solicitors’ fees are usually not recoverable in the small claims court. Due to the complexities of the case, Mrs. A is unlikely to have succeeded in proving that the local council was at fault without having an experienced lawyer to help her. If her solicitors’ costs were not recoverable from the other side, she may have felt it was not worth pursuing her claim when a large proportion of the compensation would have been paid to cover her legal fees.
Mrs. A would not have had access to the compensation she deserves; she would not have had access to justice. Thousands of injured people will suffer in the same way if the proposed reforms are introduced.
We are proud to support the Access to Justice Campaign which is fighting against the proposed PI reforms. To find out more about this, visit: www.accesstojusticeactiongroup.co.uk.
*We have used a false initial to protect the identity of our client.
0 Comments