The prospect of a fixed costs regime being applied to clinical negligence claims appears to be receding, with no progress on fleshing out the details of the scheme.
The previous government had intended to impose fixed recoverable costs (FRCs) on all claims valued up to £25,000, as well as introduce a new streamlined process for claims. Those plans were halted by the general election and the changes were never implemented, as had once been envisaged, last month.
It has now emerged that the issue was not discussed at the Civil Procedure Rule Committee meeting on 4 October, suggesting that the idea has been quietly shelved for now. It is understood that the committee, which would need to formulate and approve the necessary rule amendments to allow FRC for clinical negligence claims, is not actively considering the matter.
Practitioners are starting to believe they may not have to deal with fixed recoverable costs for some time. Clinical negligence specialist Ian Cohen, director of the Cohen Consultancy, said a potential April 2025 implementation date was now ‘almost impossible to achieve’ and that there are questions whether the scheme will ever see the light of day.
Sean Linley, senior costs draftsperson with Newcastle firm Carter Burnett, said the problem remains that some clinical negligence cases – those worth less than £100,000 where liability is admitted – are subject to fixed costs.
‘The lack of joined up approach to the wider fixed costs reforms and clinical negligence claims has created one unwieldy mess,’ said Linley. ‘Undoubtedly across all of the fixed costs reforms the position around clinical negligence is the most complex area.’
The Labour government has remained quiet on whether it will press ahead with the previous administration's plans. Last month, justice minister Lord Ponsonby was asked in a written question whether the government might consider holding a fresh consultation on the issue of FRC. The minister replied: ‘The government is considering the way forward on a range of issues related to clinical negligence, including fixed recoverable costs reform, and we will announce our position in due course.’
This article is now closed for comment.
2 Readers' comments