Letters roundup: 12 April 2024

A small win over insurers

The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the challenge from insurers in a landmark case for motorists, regarding what level of compensation those with mixed injury claims that include whiplash are entitled to (News, 27 March).

This test case was contentious, as insurers were aiming to minimise payouts for claims involving multiple injuries resulting from road traffic accidents. It was also largely illogical, as it would lead to the following position: if a claimant suffered a knee injury, they would naturally receive compensation solely for that injury but if a claimant had suffered whiplash as well, insurers argued they should be compensated for the whiplash injury instead, with a small, unpredictable increase for the knee injury.

Amazingly, this would have meant that individuals with soft tissue and non-soft tissue injuries would receive less compensation than those without any soft tissue injury.

Instead, this ruling means that insurers will still have to pay additional damages to motorists who have suffered whiplash and another injury in an accident. The ruling will also mean that insurers will not be able to reduce the total compensation bill below the common law damages that would be applied if the claimant had not suffered the whiplash injury.

This has been another example of third-party insurers attempting to avoid or justify reducing payouts by using calls of ‘fraud’ and ‘overcompensation’. It’s important to clarify that according to established law, individuals with multiple injuries are entitled to compensation for each injury they sustain. While the ruling does not go as far as claimants had hoped, it does mean that claimants will receive bigger payouts than insurers would have liked.

This is a small win in the grand scheme of things, especially as insurers have delayed payouts by waiting for this appeal, causing a significant backlog with thousands of settlements delayed.

Our own research at National Accident Helpline has found that while injuries have increased since the pandemic, claims are still winding down, due to factors including stigma around claiming and fears of the legal system.

We need to guarantee that delays do not deter claimants from receiving the compensation they need to rebuild their lives after an injury. This will not only hinge on ensuring the law is clear, but that third parties, such as insurers, are being held accountable. This unanimous decision has at least provided the clarity needed to start addressing the backlog.

John Kushnick

Legal operations director, National Accident Helpline

Chris Mullin’s moral obligation

I appreciate that your article Look Back in Anger (15 March) was concerned with miscarriages of justice, the development of mechanisms to prevent similar occurrences, and the public sector funding deficit to resource these mechanisms.

It is sad that no mention was made of the relatives of the deceased of both the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings of 1974. Those relatives remain largely forgotten and marginalised, save for their own efforts to secure justice, truth and accountability. The violent destruction of the lives of their loved ones is ‘mentioned in despatches’.

The relatives – the victims – continue to be betrayed by criminal justice and policing systems that have systemically failed and continue to fail to investigate these crimes.

There is an anger expressed toward [journalist] Chris Mullin by the relatives of the victims of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings. It was an anger demonstrated during the resumed inquest. It is anger founded upon on the perception that Mullin is reliant upon and benefits from a professional ethical pretext which is contributing to his failure to answer the question of who bombed Birmingham.

Mullin’s ethical ‘code’ serves, correctly, to protect and defend press freedom. His position not to disclose material he has in his possession regarding the Birmingham pub bombings was most recently tested in a production order prosecution by West Midlands Police against him which, from the point of view of the relatives, was lost. [Mullin agreed not to disclose information that would reveal the identity of a bomber who is still alive in exchange for information that would help exonerate the six men wrongly convicted. The application made by West Midlands Police for a production order was refused in 2022.]

Mullin is afforded much leniency by the media to justify and ventilate his position. Perhaps that media should reflect on the perceived contribution to the miscarriage of justice – the lives of 21 innocent civilians in Birmingham – made by someone who continues to add to that injustice by not telling what he knows.

The view from the ethical high ground (or foothill) is apparently clear. But when does a moral obligation outweigh an ethical standard? That is a question not just for Mullin, but for those editors who continue to give him space to opine about injustice when those who have suffered it are silenced.

Christopher Stanley

Litigation consultant, KRW Law, Belfast

Retirement charge

I am a retired solicitor, but it costs me £20 per annum to be able to call myself that because the SRA charges that sum to enable me to stay on the roll. I am also a retired part-time judge, formerly with the tribunals service, but it doesn’t cost me anything to call myself that.

I know a recently retired teacher, and again no fee is demanded to be recognised as such. The same can be said for any other profession, as far as I am aware.

My qualifications were hard-earned, and I devoted my working life to the profession and paid all the required dues whenever asked to do so. Yet now I am not practising, I still have to pay for the privilege of mentioning that I am a solicitor. Why?

Mike Cowling

Bawtry, South Yorkshire