Scrolling Pages With Ratings

	City minister's discount rate comments unfair, ill-considering and ignorant
Posted By : Bill On 03/07/2017 16:00:00
In a speech recently, to the Association of British Insurers, City minister Steve Barclay said the change in the rate earlier this year “concerns me, and I know it will concern many of colleagues in Parliament …. we have been consulting on moving away from a mechanism that has grown outdated and, with negative returns on interest-linked gilts, lost its connection with the way people invest in the real world.”. That sort of comment seems to me to be unfair, ill-considered and ignorant. How on earth does he know that it will concern many other MPs? Have they really been discussing this issue whilst the world collapses around them? How does he know the mechanism is outdated, when a fundamental purpose of the consultation, the results of which are being considered, supposedly, is to see whether the the mechanism is out of date. What does it matter how “people invest in the real world”. The whole point of the decision by the House of Lords, our supreme court, in 1998, was that the investors we are considering are different from “the real world” ie uninjured investors who can afford to run risks. Also, we all know that, if you look at how severely injured people invest, and find that they take risks, the question then arises: are they taking investment risks because they want to, or because the court has forced them to do so by using an inappropriate discount rate?

	Personal injury litigation - stick or twist?
Posted By : Bill On 03/07/2017 15:30:00
For many years I've considered with claimants and their solicitors whether we should press ahead for an early trial or settlement of the claim, or whether we should delay the process, for example to allow treatment or rehabilitation to take place at its own pace. Since the discount rate changed in March, those discussions have an extra spice, for two reasons. First, particularly since the General Election, it may take a long time for the Government to get around to doing something about the problem, which gives us more time to press cases ahead. Secondly, you can't help noticing all the opportunities that the insurers have wasted – fiddling about being difficult when they could have bought the claim off for far less than it’s likely to be worth now. I would suggest that every significant claim with a future loss element should be considered afresh for a decision to be made whether it would be possible to bring it to trial before the rate changes – if it does. Claimants need to be cautious though. Chasing the rate is of no value if the rest of the claim isn’t well prepared – which takes time.

	The importance of good brain injury case managers
Posted By : Bill On 03/07/2017 15:30:00
I've read hundreds of brain injury case management reports over the years, and they have varied enormously. In the early days (there wasn’t any recognised case management in the UK before about 1996) the reports were simple and easy to understand. Gradually they developed, sometimes, into very long tick box exercises which shed little light on the real problems, and how they were being managed. I read one recently, though, which I thought was a model. It told me everything I needed to know, including the targets that had been, and were being, set, and how success was measured against those targets. No jargon, and a very clear picture of what was going on. That made me think, as I have done many times before, that we litigators should demand more of case managers. They really do have to add value. I don’t mean the above to take away from the fact that there are some wonderful case managers doing terrific jobs, but I think we need to raise the others to that level.

	Choosing the right person for ADR
Posted By : Bill On 03/07/2017 15:30:00
I'm a great fan of ADR, and I had two experiences recently which highlighted how careful you have to be in choosing the ADR person. They happened on consecutive days, so gave a great opportunity to compare. One was very poor, with little knowledge of how personal injury claims are managed in the real world. I felt that the defence QC (very good) and I could have done the job better, and in half the time. The other one was an experienced personal injury silk, who was excellent. He knew the topic, had read the papers, and evaluated excellently. I suspect that we are approaching the time when we will demand ADR people who are specialist in our own topics. I've thought that for a long time, but of course vested interests are very much against the idea. You can't get round the fact that, if the ADR person doesn’t talk your language, it makes the process more difficult.

First	Previous	2	3	4	5	6	[7]	8	9	10	11	12	Next	Last