PNLA response to the Post Implementation Review of LASPO-Part 2 which came into force for retainers entered into after 1 April 2013
The key points raised by the PNLA relate to the operation of sections 44 and 46 non-recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums as follows:
- The LJ Jackson reports of 2009 supporting exclusion from costs protection, compared to the LJ Briggs reports of 2016 critical of the exclusion of costs protection for individuals and SMEs.
- The evidential basis for the failure to provide similar costs protection measures to claims against medical professionals to those against non-medical professionals and an invitation to bring the funding in line for all professional negligence claims.
- The particular unfairness to those with claims against litigation solicitors, Counsel and/or experts in damaged cases where this type of claim has no costs protection but the damaged claim had costs protection (injury/clinical negligence) and those where LASPO Part 2 does not or did not apply initially (defamation and privacy, mesothelioma and insolvency)
- The further evidence available now which undermines the decision to exclude non-medical professionals from costs protection measures notably the lack of any evidence at all that BTE insurance ever was or is likely to be an alternative to pre-LASPO Part 2 funding.
- The response to the PNLA survey carried out over the Summer. This shows a higher percentage of claims being rejected post implementation, practice sizes reducing and fewer claims settling pre-action.
The response is attached excluding the appendices which are available on request. We shall keep you posted about further developments.
Katy Manley President - PNLA