Written evidence from Thompsons Solicitors
(AJ 11)
INTRODUCTION
1. Thompsons is the UK's largest personal injury
(PI) law firm. It has a network of 30 offices across the UK, including
in the separate legal jurisdictions of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
2. Thompsons only acts for trade union members
and the victims of injury, never for employers or insurance companies.
At any one time, the firm will be running over 70,000 claims.
3. The firm participates regularly in government
consultations on legislative issues.
4. In this evidence we comment only on those
questions posed by the Committee that relate to PI cases.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5. Thompsons are not saying that the current
civil justice system is perfect. We say that:
A. In PI the person injured through no fault
of their own has everything to prove. The defendant insurers don't
have anything to prove, they simply have to deny liability;
B. The injured consumer has to take on a highly
resourced insurance company with no commercial interest in paying
out compensation unless they have to;
C. Reforms to civil justice have to weighed against
the impact they may have on access to justice or access to quality
justice;
D. We agree with Lord Young that there is no
compensation culture but there is a perception of a compensation
culture;
E. Nothing that is proposed by Lord Justice Jackson
will deal with the perception of a compensation culture;
F. Nothing that is proposed by Lord Justice Jackson
will reduce claim numbers unless they put people off claiming;
G. The government will not save any money unless
people are put off claiming;
H. The government will lose revenue if people
are put off claiming;
I. The Jackson LJ reforms will save the insurers
£millions;
J. Nothing that is proposed by Lord Justice Jackson
will reduce advertising on television by claims companies;
K. If the reforms are introduced lawyers will
be encouraged to cherry pick good cases and turn down cases which
though they may have a greater than 50% chance of success are
not 'open and shut';
L. Nothing is being done about referral fees;
M. The poorest and most vulnerable are unlikely
to take out Before The Event insurance which Jackson LJ sees as
part of the solution; and
N. Whatever the outcome of the consultation it
appears the government has made its mind up about the need for
primary legislation. Although the consultation doesn't finish
until February 2011 the published Ministry of Justice Business
Plan sets out a timetable to implement the changes from Spring
2011.
The Government predicts that there will be 500,00
fewer cases in the civil courts as a result of its proposed reforms.
Which cases will these be and how will the issues they involve
be resolved?
6. Although the MoJ did not include any estimate
of winners and losers from the proposals in the consultation,
we have seen a number of claims about the impact of the reforms
and new arrangements from those promoting them.
7. We have seen no independent or convincing
evidence to back up the claims made. Academics and statisticians
who have studied the proposals appear to agree there will be more
net losers than winners. Our calculations appended to this evidence
taken from real cases show substantial losses in compensation
for injured clients.
8. We would suggest that those promoting the
new arrangements on the basis that case numbers will drop should
be tested on the legitimacy of the claims they are making.
9. Nothing in the reforms will in themselves
reduce claim numbers. The only way there will be less claims is
if people are put off making a claim even if that claim is legitimate.
Putting consumers off making a legitimate claim is a denial of
justice.
Why would the reforms put consumers off making
a claim?
10. There will be no fund if you lose to pay
the other sides' costs or your own expenses eg for a medical report.
11. At the moment a consumer can find a lawyer
to take on a case because the lawyer can take out an After The
Event (ATE) insurance policy.
12. In successful cases, the polluter pays ("loser
pays all") and the consumer gets the ATE premium back from
the losing party.
13. If the case is lost the ATE policy covers
unavoidable disbursements in running the case, such as for an
independent medical report, as well as the other side's costs.
14. The existence of ATE and the recoverability
of the premium in cases that are won doesn't mean that lawyers
will take on cases regardless as to whether they win or lose.
As with any insurance, if they keep losing, insurers will refuse
to provide cover.
15. It is suggested that the consumer's risk
as to the other side's costs should be taken away by the introduction
of "one way costs shifting" but that is "qualified"
by Jackson LJ and very vague. It is based on judicial discretion.
16. If one way costs shifting were to be unqualified
or the qualification set out clearly such that only very exceptional
cases are exempted (say those pursued against uninsured individuals
or those brought by the very wealthy) then the risk of having
to pay the other side's costs would go and one reason for having
ATE could be removed without an adverse impact on consumers.
17. Unqualified one way cost shifting still wont
deal with the question of who is going to pay for a medical report
if a case is lost or cannot be pursued. If there is no ATE consumers
will either find that lawyers will not take a case on or they
will be asked to pay disbursements up front.
18. Consumers likely to be hit particularly hard
by having to meet the cost of a medical report at the start of
their case would include those suffering from dermatitis, asbestos
related conditions, industrial deafness and RSI where causation
is almost always an issue and can only be established by evidence
from medical experts.
19. There will be fewer cases because….Several
hundreds of pounds as an up front payment will put the less well
off in society from making a claim at all.
20. Lawyers will be unwilling to take on anything
but easy cases.
21. Success fees are paid to lawyers in successful
cases by the losing party to recognise the risk that if the case
had been lost they wouldn't have been paid their own costs and
would have had to write those off: 'No Win No Fee'
22. Success fees are used by law firms to build
up a fund for their own costs when they lose a case and for the
costs of investigating a case that they have to turn down. At
Thompsons if a case has more than 50% chance of winning we will
run it yet a high proportion—at least half of cases that
we receive—are turned down after investigation. However
efficient you are, investigation costs money.
23. As a result of an industry wide agreement
mediated by the Civil Justice Council (CJC) success fees are fixed
in 80% of personal injury cases.
24. The aim of the mediation was that the success
fees once fixed should be cost neutral in a "basket"
of cases, some of which would be turned down, some of which would
be lost and some of which would be won.
25. Several CJC members formed part of Jackson
LJ's team. Another member of Lord Jackson's team did the research
and statistical modelling for the current success fees.
26. A major challenge in setting the current
fixed success fees was to ensure that they would not damage access
to justice and meritorious but risky cases would still be pursued.
27. When the statistical modelling indicated
that the cost neutral success fee for accident at work cases was
approximately 27%, further complex modelling was undertaken to
produce staged success fees as where there were two 50/50 cases
27% recovered in the successful case would not pay for the 100%
lost in the failed case.
28. The result was one figure applicable in cases
settled pre-trial and another for those which are fought to trial.
Based on the logic was that no insurer would fight a case to trial
unless there was at least a 50% chance of a successful defence
the success fee is set at 100% for those accident at work cases
proceeding to trial but a reduced success fee for settled cases
at 25%.
29. Jackson LJ appears to ignore the detailed
work in the past of those on his own team. He chooses to shift
the burden of success fees from the negligent party to the consumer
injured through no fault of their own.
30. The effect of Lord Jackson's artificial reduction
of the success fee is to make it no longer cost neutral. This
is particularly marked in cases which fight to trial.
31. On Lord Jackson's own figures it will simply
not be viable for solicitors to pursue the vast majority of cases
to trial. The insurers will have the upper hand and be able to
force low settlements in some cases and no settlement in others
simply by contesting liability and/or quantum throughout.
32. Some say that lawyers will outbid each other
and "the market" will drive success fees down to a low
sum or nil so there is no deduction from compensation. If that
happens consumers will get 100% of their compensation but only
if they can find a lawyers to take it on. Lawyers will have no
incentive to take on any cases that are difficult because there
will be no fund they can draw upon should they have to turn the
case down or if they lose.
33. No success fee in a straightforward case
is problematic as it stops lawyers building up a fund for other
claims. No success fee in any case that is less than straightforward
means consumers will struggle to find a lawyer.
34. Advertising for cases on the television and
in the tabloid press will however continue, but the cases will
be screened harder with lawyers cherry picking only safe cases
to run.
35. There will be fewer cases because…People
injured through no fault of their own but who have more difficult
or possible test cases will be unable to find a lawyer willing
to take their case on.
36. Compensation will be significantly reduced.
37. Lord Jackson proposes that success fees can
still be recovered but from the injured consumer rather than the
insurer to the negligent defendant. Where they are recoverable
they are to be capped at 25% of a claimants' damages.
38. Deductions from damages have been widely
condemned by consumer groups. They look like the system in the
USA where lawyers take a slice of the claimant's winnings. They
have caused chaos in equal pay claims in the UK.
39. This may not put off a road traffic accident
victim where there are no personal repercussions. But for the
workplace accident victim who pursues a claim against their employer,
with all the possible ramifications, the risk of losing or the
prospect of taking on a claim only to end up having to hand over
a significant chunk of their compensation to a lawyer may deter
them from claiming altogether.
40. For employers, this presents an opportunity
to cut health and safety corners, on the basis that employees
are less likely to pursue a claim if this results in injury.
41. There will be fewer cases because…either
cases will not be taken on or, if they can find a lawyer, the
consumer - though they have been injured through no fault of their
own - will be left with substantially less compensation and may
decide not to bother making a claim at all.
42. The Jackson report proposals say Before the
Event insurance (BTE) is the answer, but not everyone can afford
BTE.
43. The consultation paper indicates that the
government supports greater take up of BTE to resolve some access
to justice issues. Lord Jackson accepts that the cost of BTE may
go up due to his proposals and those consumers who are unwilling
or unable to afford the luxury of BTE are likely to be the poorest
and most vulnerable in society. They will end up getting less
compensation. In some cases those without BTE will get up to 60%
less compensation—see Appendix.
44. There will be fewer cases because…consumers
who cannot afford or do not take out BTE will get substantially
less compensation and may decide not to bother making a claim
at all. A two tier justice system will have been created with
the poorest and most vulnerable being the losers.
Do the proposals to implement the Jackson report
recommendations on civil court funding and costs adequately reflect
the contents of that report?
45. No. Lord Jackson described his recommendations
as a "coherent package of interlocking reforms". Yet
the consultation paper omits proposals on several of them.
46. Specifically, on referral fees the paper
says: "In light of this ongoing work (the LSB consultation)
the issue of referral fees is not included in this consultation
paper. The Government will await the outcome of the LSB's consultation
before reaching a conclusion".
47. We believe the current regime around referral
fees is a major factor encouraging the advertising by claims firms
which Lord Young identified as fuelling the perception of a compensation
culture. Without movement on the issue of referral fees advertising
will continue even if behind the scenes there is heavy "cherry
picking".
48. The proposals on referral fees from Lord
Jackson would not deal with the issue and would have a negative
impact on millions of consumers. An outright ban is not the answer
because whilst the excesses of BTE insurers and claims companies
would be caught by an outright ban on referral fees, so too would
many other organisations that offer genuine access to high quality
legal services.
49. The problem arises partly because the adoption
of the current SRA definition of referral fees by Lord Justice
Jackson would impact on the many bodies who represent injury victims
and work closely with law firms to provide extensive services
to those victims. These include charities, membership organisations
and other not for profit organisations—asbestos support
groups, serious injury charities, head injury charities and cycling
clubs.
50. Unlike insurers and claims companies, not
for profit and charitable bodies exist to benefit their members/constituents,
not to make a profit. They drive up the quality of the legal advice
to their members by working only with firms that satisfy them
on quality and experience and a commitment to pursue difficult
and ground breaking cases.
51. In recognition of the referral of personal
injury cases law firms often assist victims' groups with free
advice on state benefits, legal advice surgeries, training and
the sponsorship of events. Jackson LJ's recommendation on referral
fees would make this unlawful.
52. We favour an outcome in relation to referral
fees which puts an end to the unacceptable abuses by BTE insurers
and claims companies and thereby cuts off the attractiveness of
saturation advertising but which supports access to high quality
justice offered by membership organisations, charities and not-for-profit
bodies.
53. There is a way to achieve this. One could
keep the current definition of referral fees but permit them only
where they satisfy all three of the following criteria:
(i) they are reasonable in amount;
(ii) they are provided wholly or mainly in services
rather than as direct financial payments; and
(iii) the beneficiaries are only membership organisations,
charities and other not-for-profit bodies.
What are the implications of the Government's
proposals?
54. The government decision to implement part
of the report will impact on all aspects of legal services to
consumers injured through no fault of their own.
55. The government will lose revenue because
fewer cases will mean less will be recovered by the Compensation
Recovery Unit (CRU) in both benefits paid to injured people and
NHS costs. In addition there will be reduced VAT due to reduced
case numbers and less costs being paid in those cases that are
pursued.
56. In practice the proposals will mean:
(i) the end of being able to take out After the
Event (ATE) insurance against losing a case. This may be offset
(although only partly) by one way costs shifting;
(ii) insurance for disbursements in cases that
are lost and turned down will no longer be available - Lord Jackson
expects injury victims to pick this up;
(iii) No success fee means no fund for cases
that are lost;
(iv) a return to the old days of deductions from
claimant's damages (to be capped at 25% of damages);
(v) a green light for contingency fees (the American
system where the lawyer takes a part of any compensation won and
which caused havoc in equal pay cases);
(vi) reduced government revenue from less benefit
recovery, less NHS costs recovery and reduced VAT payments.
56. The impact on vulnerable injured claimants
of the government's proposals also has implications for small
businesses, as highlighted by Irwin Steltzer in the Times (21
October, Hounding no-win, no-fee lawyers is an attack on
the poor).
57. Steltzer pointed out that the balance that
favours large City law firms will be "tipped even more to
disadvantage citizens whose only recourse is to no-win, no-fee
law firms who must advertise to bring themselves to the attention
of potential clients."
58. Steltzer added that "these firms have
little incentive to take on frivolous lawsuits" because they
spend their own money doing the necessary research. Preventing
them from "displaying their wares is an assault on entrepreneurial
risk-takers who gamble that their skill in sorting out winning
cases from sure losers will earn them a decent living".
December 2010
APPENDIX
JACKSON CASE EXAMPLES
A proportionately reduced ATE premium, has been anticipated
for in the examples below to provide funds to cover unrecovered
disbursements should the case be lost.
The names have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
1. Adams
Work accident case. Warehouseman soft tissue injuries
to back.
Settled for £1,275 post issue including general
damages of £1,255.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £1.400.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £350.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 6.7% of the amount currently agreed by
all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £125 in general damages
but loses £910 (£350 + £560) meaning he recovers
£490, a loss of 61.6%.
2. Brown
Work accident case. Residential social worker fracture
of left arm.
Settled for £8,000 pre issue including general
damages of £7,114.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £8,711.
Success fee payable out of damages (no cap) is £672.22.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would have operated to limit
the success fee to 31.4% of the amount currently agreed by all
parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning cases
to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £711 in general damages
but loses £1232.22 (£672.22 + £560) meaning he
recovers £7478.78, a loss of 6.5%.
3. Clarks
Work accident case. Cleaner electrocuted.
Settled for £3,000 post issue including general
damages of £2,800.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £3,280.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £820.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 14.3% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £280 in general damages
but loses £1380 (£820 + £560) meaning he recovers
£1900, a loss of 36.6%.
4. Davey
Work accident case. Driver received soft tissue injuries
to back, right hip and thigh.
Settled for £2,500 post issue including general
damages of £2,400.
Post Jackson
Compensation would be initially £2,740.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £685.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 12.1% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £240 in general damages
but loses £1245 (£685 +£560) meaning he recovers
£1495 a loss of 40%.
5. Edwards
Work disease case. Turner develops chronic dermatitis
Settled for £5,500 post issue including general
damages of £5,450.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £6,045.
Success fee payable out of damages (no cap) is £1,108.25.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would have operated to limit
the success fee to 22.7% of the amount currently agreed by all
parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning cases
to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £545 in general damages
but loses £1,668.25 (£1,108.25 + £560) meaning
he recovers £4376.75 a loss of 20.4%.
6. Fieldhouse
Work accident case. Welder developed pre patella
bursitis in right knee.
Settled for £1,900 post issue.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £2,090.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £522.50.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 9.9% of the amount currently agreed by
all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £190 in general damages
but loses £1,082.50 (£522.50+ £560) meaning he
recovers £1007.50 a loss of 47%.
7. Griffiths
Work accident case. Slipped on oil causing two year
acceleration of pre existing back condition.
Settled for £2,000 all general damages at trial.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £2,200.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £550.
At trial the cap would also operate to limit the success fee to
9% of the amount currently agreed by all parties as necessary
to ensure there is a fund from winning cases to pay for losing
cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £200 in general damages
but loses £1,110 (£550 + £560) meaning he recovers
£1090 a loss of 45.5%.
8. Harrison
Work accident case. Health improvement specialist
for a PCT slipped on wet floor, injuries to hip, spine and ribs.
Settled for £3875 pre trial including general
damages of £3,707.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £,4245.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £1,061.25.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 17.4% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £370 in general damages
but loses £1,621.25 (£1,061.25 + £560) meaning
she recovers £2623.75 a loss of 41.8%.
9. Inglis
Work accident case. Packing Manager suffered strain
to left knee.
Settled for £2,500 all general damages.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £2,750.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £687.50.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 12% of the amount currently agreed by
all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £250 in general damages
but loses £1,247.50 (£687.50 + £560). Meaning he
recovers £1502.50 a loss of 39.9%.
10. James
Work accident case. Delivery driver fractured finger.
Settled for £3,500 post issue including general
damages of £2,000.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £3,700.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £925.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 15.6% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £200 in general damages
but loses £1,485 (£925 + £560) meaning he recovers
£2,215 a loss of 36.7%.
11. Knights
RTA case.
Settled for £4,800 post issue including general
damages of £2,525.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £5,052.
Success fee payable out of damages (no cap) is £1,065.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would have operated success
fee would be 29.6% of the amount currently agreed by all parties
as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning cases to pay
for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £252 in general damages
but loses £1,625 (£1,065 + £560) meaning he recovers
£3,427 a loss of 28.6%.
12. Lawson
RTA case.
Settled for £5,000 post issue including general
damages of £3,800.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £5,380.
Success fee payable out of damages (no cap) is £1,081.50.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would operate success fee would
be 30.8% of the amount currently agreed by all parties as necessary
to ensure there is a fund from winning cases to pay for losing
cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £380 in general damages
but loses £1,641.50 (£1,081.50 + £560) meaning
he recovers £3738.50 a loss of 25.2%.
13. Mildmay
Work accident case. Process Operator suffered soft
tissue injuries to leg.
Settled for £1,200 post issue including general
damages of £1,080.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £1308.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £327.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 6.3% of the amount currently agreed by
all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damages estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £108 in general damages
but loses £887 (£327 + £560) meaning he recovers
£421 a loss of 64.9%.
14. Newgent
Work accident case. Catering Assistant suffered soft
tissue injury to back.
Settled for £1,600 post issue including general
damages of £1200.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £1,720.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £430.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 8% of the amount currently agreed by
all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damaged estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £120 in general damages
but loses £990 (£430 + £560) meaning she recovers
£730 a loss of 54.4%.
15. Olivers
Work accident case. Crane driver suffered an injury
to shoulder.
Settled for £1,300 post issue all general damages.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £1,430.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £357.50.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 6.8% of the amount currently agreed by
all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damaged estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £130 in general damages
but loses £917.50 (£357.50 + £560) meaning he recovers
£512.50 a loss of 60.6%,
16. Parsons
Work accident case. Retail Manager electrocuted.
Settled for £2500 post issue including general
damages of £1600.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £2,660.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £665.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 11.8% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damaged estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £160 in general damages
but loses £1,225 (£665 + £560) meaning he recovers
£1,435 a loss of 42.6%.
17. Randall
Work accident case. Manager at a children's home
sustained shoulder injury.
Settled for £8500 post issue including general
damages of £8000.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £9,300.
Success fee payable out of damages (no cap) is £1,903.75.
Had the case gone to trial the cap have operated success fee would
be 30.5% of the amount currently agreed by all parties as necessary
to ensure there is a fund from winning cases to pay for losing
cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damaged estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £800 in general damages
but loses £2,463.75 (£1,903.75 + £560) meaning
he recovers £6836.25 a loss of 19.6%.
18. Simons
Work accident case. School employee suffered injuries
to knee, neck and face.
Settled for £5,170 post issue including general
damages of £5,000.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £5,670.
Success fee payable out of damages (no cap) is £1,210.63.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would have operated, the success
fee would be 23.5% of the amount currently agreed by all parties
as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning cases to pay
for losing cases and provide access to justice.
Insurance premium also payable out of damaged estimated
at £560.
So the Claimant gains £500 in general damages
but loses £1,770.63 (£1,210.63 + £560) meaning
he recovers £3899.37 a loss of 24.6%.
19. Turner
Work disease case. Trainee Probation Officer develops
Repetitive Strain Injury.
Settled for £8,000 post issue including general
damages of £6,000.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £8,600.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £2,150.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 22.8% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
The post Jackson premium is estimated at £665.
So the Claimant gains £600 in general damages
but loses £2,815 (£2150 + £665) meaning he recovers
£5,785 a loss of 27.5%.
20. Underwood
Work accident case. Restaurant supervisor developed
repetitive strain injury to neck and shoulder.
Settled for £3000 pre issue including general
damages of £2,900.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £3,290.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £822.50.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 10.5% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
The post Jackson premium is estimated at £665.
So the Claimant gains £290 in general damages
but loses £1,487.50 (£822.50 + £665) meaning he
recovers £1,802.50 a loss of 40%.
21. Venstrata
Work accident case. Rigging Operative suffered repetitive
strain injury to back.
Settled for £3,800 post issue all general damages.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £4,180.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £1,045.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 13.7% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
The post Jackson premium is estimated at £665.
So the Claimant gains £380 in general damages
but loses £1710 (£1,045 + £665) meaning he recovers
£2,470 a loss of 35%.
22. Wesley
Work disease case. Journalist developed work related
upper limb disorder.
Settled for £8,000 post issue including general
damages of £5,500.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £8,550.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £2,137.50.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 23.9% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
The post Jackson premium is estimated at £665.
So the Claimant gains £550 in general damages
but loses £2,802.50 (£2,137.50 + £665) meaning
he recovers £5,747.50 a loss of 28.2%.
23. Yasminder
Work accident case. Welder developed hand and arm
injuries.
Settled for £2,500 pre issue, all general damages.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £2,750.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £687.50.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 8.9% of the amount currently agreed by
all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
The post Jackson premium is estimated at £665.
So the Claimant gains £250 in general damages
but loses £1,352.50 (£687.50 + £665) meaning he
recovers £1,397.50 a loss of 44.1%.
24. Archibold
Deafness claim.
Settled for £5,000 post issue all general damages.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £5,500.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £1,375.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 16.1% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
The post Jackson premium is estimated at £665.
So the Claimant gains £500 in general damages
but loses £2,040 (£1,375 + £665) meaning he recovers
£3,460 a loss of 40.8%.
25. Bellamy
Vibration White Finger case.
Settled for £6,665 post issue all general damages.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £7,331.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £1,832.75.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 20.3% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
The post Jackson premium is estimated at £665.
So the Claimant gains £666 in general damages
but loses £2,497.75 (£1,832.75 + £665) meaning
he recovers £4,833.25 a loss of 27.5%.
26. Christou
Deafness claim.
Settled for £3,000 post issue all general damages
of £3,000.
Post Jackson:
Compensation would be initially £3,300.
Success fee payable out of damages capped at £825.
Had the case gone to trial the cap would also have operated to
limit the success fee to 10.5% of the amount currently agreed
by all parties as necessary to ensure there is a fund from winning
cases to pay for losing cases and provide access to justice.
The post Jackson premium is estimated at £665.
So the Claimant gains £300 in general damages
but loses £1,490 (£825 +£665) meaning he recovers
£1,810 a loss of 39.7%.
| 
