Report comment

The Mail on Sunday claims this as a victory for itself, which seems surprising, in that it is very short sighted.

I've never practised in this field, and know next to nothing about the process. I did however practise general litigation/arbitration and (in the early days) housing litigation. In any litigation, the ability of the opponent to prosecute/defend is a serious tactical consideration. It's not always simply a question of cost (although that can be a factor, more so with individuals), and other pressure points to win a decent settlement may be found, which have nothing to do with the litigation. For example, if litigation arises from a botched project, it is incredibly helpful if the executive(s) concerned are no longer at the opponent company, because the new team won't be terribly interested in raking over old coals which weren't their responsibility. They invariably want to 'move on.' So an OK settlement is more possible, sooner.

It is basic economics that if you put up the price of something, less will be bought. The Government itself has recent experience of this, in the dramatic decline in ET cases being brought since the hike in fees.

Capping recoverable costs is just another way of making claims more costly, so reducing the number. It won't mean that in the past some claims were fraudulent, just that the economics of making a claim will be beyond the potential claimant. It's surprising that Hunt, and the Mail, don't realise this, and that the losers will be their voters and their readers.

I agree entirely with the various comments about costs generally: no necessary connection between the level of costs and damages; if unscrupulous lawyers are 'creaming off' unwarranted fees, they should be dealt with; judges have extensive control over costs; the cap is likely to make the NHSLA steelier in resisting claims, however meritorious, because of the high chance the claimant will run out of funds (see above).

This is a crowd pleaser, but assumes the crowd are all stupid. Nonetheless, inertia (and the absence of a worthwhile opposition) will let this pass. I expect legal expenses insurance will seek to fill the gap, and further acclimatise voters to the idea of everyone paying privately, through insurance. It is something of a Conservative mantra to reduce the role of the state, and let the market provide instead, which is tough luck on all those who can't afford insurance cover. But never mind them.