Norwich Solicitors - News, Rogers & Norton Solicitors Norwich Norfolk

Since 2007 the Ministry of Justice have consulted on reforms to the Personal Injury Claims process to achieve a quicker process where appropriate and more proportionate costs. The outcome of the consultation was published on Monday 21 st July 2008.

Several changes are proposed, aimed at speeding up the process and several options considered have been discontinued due to the force of representation. The key changes that may affect the client pursuing or resisting a personal injury claim are as follows:

The small claims track limit for personal injury claims which has been set at £1,000 for the value of the injury claim for some time will not increase.

The limit on fast track claims currently set at £15,000 will be increased to £25,000.

There will be a new claims process for road traffic accident claims where the value of the claim is £10,000 or less and there is no dispute on liability, the cause of the injury or allegations of contributory negligence. This process will be accompanied by a fixed recoverable cost system to regulate the level of costs that can be recovered.

Commenting upon the changes, Mark Hambling, a Partner in the firm’s Personal Injury Department indicated that he welcomes the Ministry of Justices’ decision to maintain the small claims limit for personal injury claims at £1,000.

“This is important in ensuring that those that unfortunately suffer personal injury claims have the ability to pursue their claim with the advice and representation of a qualified lawyer without their claim being at risk of falling into the small claims track. The initial proposals considered increasing the small claims limit for personal injury claims to £5,000 which would have prevented many cases being dealt with by solicitors and this would have significantly curtailed the access to justice for those suffering injury.”

Whilst it was perhaps inevitable that the fast track limit was going to increase, it is hoped that this will improve the speed in which relatively straightforward personal injury claims can be resolved. It is however of some concern that under the proposed reforms there is no procedure whereby complex claims which may have a value less than £25,000 but which are complex on the issues and more suited to the multi track procedure can be moved from the fast track to the multi track. This may lead to further litigation before the Court in arguing whether a case should be transferred even though the value falls within the new fast track claims limit. It will be interesting to see how Judges react to such applications.

This new procedure will create a system where the solicitor representing the Claimant will need to send a notification of claim to the Defendant within 5 days of obtaining all of the information required. The insurer then has only 15 days in which to respond within an indication on liability and no extensions of time are likely to be allowed. In effect in a relatively short period of time in a road traffic accident case where the value will not exceed £10,000 the insurer will have a very short period of time in which to consider liability and confirm whether this is admitted. There will then be processes whereby the solicitor would put together the medical evidence and prepare a settlement pack to send to the insurer who will then have a further 15 working days upon receipt of the pack to accept or reject an offer to settle. It is quite clear that this new process could significantly speed up the claims process however there will be a need for caution to be exercised by the solicitor to ensure that all of the medical evidence is accurate and the prognosis clear before advising a client on a full and final settlement.

It must also be noted that under this procedure, if the insurer denies liability, argues to any degree that the person bringing the claim was responsible or denies that the injuries were caused by the accident, the claim will fall out of this new procedure and proceed in line with the current process, more likely than not within the fast track limit.

It should be welcomed that the Ministry of Justice have maintained the small claims track limit and it is hoped that the new road traffic accident claims process will be a success. However there must be some concern that in relation to both this new process and the new fast track limit that this will include claims that are complex and perhaps not completely suited for a streamlined process. It is therefore hoped that there will be some provisions for claims that are unsuitable for the process on the issues to be moved into the multi track where appropriate.

It is however disappointing that in relation to the reforms the Ministry of Justice have not considered whether provision could be made for the better implementation of the Rehabilitation Code of Best Practice. It is as important that a Claimant receives early treatment and management of an injury at an early stage as it is that they are suitably compensated at the conclusion of the claim. It is therefore disappointing that the Code of Best Practice on Rehabilitation, which is at the moment part of the Personal Injury claims Protocol was not mentioned in the proposed reforms. It is also disappointing that the reforms do not further emphasise the need for early interim payments in suitable cases and in particular in larger claims. In the absence of any mention of this in the reforms it is likely that in the event of an insurer not voluntarily agreeing to an early payment on account, Court proceedings to seek an interim payment will have to be issued.

Finally there is no timescale in terms of the implementation of these proposals and it is therefore necessary to “watch this space” as to when the proposals are implemented and what, if any, changes are made between now and the implementation”.

For further information on the proposed changes or to discuss any specific case that you may wish to advance or defend please contact Mark Hambling on 01603 675637 or mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Solicitors Rogers and Norton celebrated its 25th Anniversary on Saturday with a Grand Charity Ball to mark the occasion. Over 420 staff, clients and friends attended and helped to raise much-needed funds for The Clare School.

Rogers and Norton has grown over the last 25 years to a 75-strong firm. Starting life in a small office on Elm Hill, the film quickly outgrew its premises and moved to offices in London Street . This also soon became too small for the expanding practice, which led to the acquisition of further offices in Woburn House. The next move was to The Old Chapel in 1991.

The Old Chapel in Willow Lane is an unusual choice of office. Built in 1829 as a Roman Catholic church, it was converted to a school in 1896 and to offices in 1990. It now forms the head office of Rogers and Norton, which also has a branch office on Fifers Lane in Hellesdon.

At the time of the move to The Old Chapel, it was unusual for solicitors in Norwich to occupy an open-plan layout, but it is something Rogers and Norton has used to benefit communication and develop a team approach to dealing with matters.

Practice manager Graham Knights confirmed that this approach has improved communication, which in turn has helped the firm provide a better service to its clients.

The partners at Rogers and Norton believe that much has changed in terms of the expectations and needs of clients and therefore the services that Solicitors offer.

The days when one solicitor would handle every aspect of a client's work and, in a lot of cases, work for an entire family, are all but gone. Instead, the successful firm must provide teams of solicitors with individual specialities that enable them to provide a bespoke service, Managing partner Richard Etheridge said: "Solicitors are needed more often now. People move more frequently, are generally wealthier and therefore need wills, they get divorced more often and, with the concept of a 'job for life' becoming less common, there are more employment issues to consider. Clients also choose their solicitors according to the transaction they require, and at Rogers and Norton we can offer specialised services that clients today need."

That's not to say that the idea of a family law firm has completely disappeared. Following the merger of the Crotch Partnership with Rogers and Norton in 2000, Andrew Crotch - the former proprietor of the Crotch Partnership - joined the firm as consultant, bringing his team and many of his clients with him. A great number of these clients continue to use Rogers and Norton today, showing that loyalty can still be found and embraced in today's modern world if the service levels are high.

Mr Etheridge believes that Rogers and Norton is constantly progressing and growing, in particular in providing services to the local business community. The firm is keen to grow organically and aims to recruit top-quality personnel who can offer clients specialist advice on a range of issues.

Two new arrivals to the team show that Rogers and Norton is constantly on the look out for solicitors who can add something extra to the business. Philip Rogers was one of the founders of Rogers and Norton, but left tile firm in 1994 to pursue a career as a barrister and latterly to become a District Judge. His son Paul followed his father's footsteps into law and has been working as a solicitor with other local firms for the last eight years until recently joining Rogers and Norton in the commercial property team.

Tom Lawrence, a probate and trusts lawyer with another local firm will also be joining the team at the beginning of July.

The firm is very proud of its Norfolk roots, with most of the partners coming from this area. This community feel is something that benefits Rogers and Norton and its clients alike.

The firm likes to give something back to the community and has, over the years supported several organisations and charities, most recently raising in excess of £15,000 for a much needed new kitchen at The Clare School Life School Department through its 25th Anniversary Ball.

Rogers and Norton is determined to follow the same forward-thinking approach for the next 25 years.

"We are not looking for expansion just for tile sake of getting bigger," said Mr Etheridge. "Instead, we want to see Rogers and Norton achieve quality growth in terms of its staff and service to clients. The Old Chapel is a great building, which allows us to work in a unique environment and offer a service that we think is not only first Class but, in true Norfolk fashion, just a bit different."

With effect from today the NHS Injury Cost Recovery Scheme comes into force in respect of injuries at work. This scheme provides the NHS with the ability to recover costs from employers, usually via their insurance companies, for treating patients in cases relating to accidents at work where the NHS has provided treatment, and compensation is paid.

For many years the NHS have been able to recoup the cost of treating victims of road traffic accidents from the insurer of the party at fault under a scheme administered by the Compensation Recovery Unit.

Under the NHS Injury Cost Recovery Scheme, with effect from today employers of employees injured at work, who receive treatment on the NHS and successfully pursue compensation claims, will be required to reimburse in addition to the client’s damages the cost of the treatment on the NHS.

This liability will more likely than not be paid by the employer’s insurers. However, given that it is estimated that the cost of treating those injured other than in road traffic accidents is estimated in the region of £170-£190 million, there is concern that the new legislation may lead to an increase in employer liability premiums.

Under this scheme the insurer of the employer will be liable to compensate up to a maximum of £37,100 in treatment costs which can include the treatment in hospital following the injury and follow up appointments.

The scheme will be administered by the Compensation Recovery Unit in the same way that it currently administers the liability for treatment costs in relation to road traffic accidents.

Rogers & Norton recently concluded a libel claim brought by our client and former Breckland District Council Leader Cliff Jordan against the Eastern Daily Press. We were also able to dispose of a related complaint made against him by a member of the public to the Standards Board for England. This is the body which adjudicates on complaints (including recently against London Mayor Ken Livingstone) for alleged breaches of local authorities’ Codes of Conduct. Councillor Jordan has kindly agreed that we could publish these details on our website.

Both matters were triggered by EDP and Dereham and Fakenham Times reports of the outcome of Councillor Jordan’s appeal against a Department of Work and Pensions decision. This was about the effect of his District Council Allowances for work as Breckland Leader on his entitlement to disability benefits.

Councillor Jordan’s appeal was only partially successful, but to the extent that he failed, the Tribunal expressly found that there had been nothing fraudulent involved. The EDP nevertheless gave extensive coverage to the matter as if it were a case of benefit fraud.

Partner John Cadywould agreed to pursue a libel claim under a Conditional Fee Agreement, meaning that Rogers & Norton would be paid only if we succeeded in the claim and were able to recover the costs from the EDP.

The EDP initially denied liability, but later published a fulsome and prominent retraction and apology in both newspapers concerned. It has also made a substantial payment to Councillor Jordan by way of libel damages and the EDP is responsible for payment of all of the proper legal costs of the libel claim.

The EDP’s misreporting had in turn triggered a complaint to the Standards Board about apparently “fraudulent” behaviour by a Councillor but we were also able to use the EDP’s apology as part of our case to the Standards Board which resulted in the dismissal of that complaint.

Although it is impossible to undo all of the damage caused by a libel, we are delighted that the combination of an unprecedented apology by the newspaper concerned, the payment of substantial libel damages free of any costs deduction, and the dismissal of the complaint to the Standards Board have comfortably achieved all that Councillor Jordan asked of us when we took this matter on.

We are finally delighted that the substantial restoration of Councillor Jordan’s public reputation has recently been recognised by his recent appointment as Chairman of the Mid Norfolk Conservative Association.

For further information in connection with our libel and commercial disputes practice and the possible use of Conditional Fee Agreements in these areas please contact John Cadywould.


home \| services \| people \| contact us \| community \| news \| find us \| links \| jobs \| site map