It’s uncouth to talk about money (so Brits believe) but like all stereotyping there is a grain of truth to it. Yet unless you are a ‘Trustifarian’ (a position achieved through an ancestor being extremely relaxed about money) earning a living is a fundamental of life.  Work hopefully is more fulfilling than simply a means to an end but that is not a given.

The medical profession is the very definition of a vocational career therefore our society expects our doctors to be there come-what may. So I was a little shocked when the first junior doctor strike in 40 years happened with potentially more action on the way.  The perception of the medical profession is rightly one of professional people with a strong sense of commitment to their vocation and helping people.  Like the rest of us they have to earn a living and I was a little surprised at how much a junior doctor is paid, bearing in mind the importance of the role to society and the fact that it not a career just anyone can do.  The Government must be embarrassed to have this strike on their hands with public opinion for the time-being supporting the junior doctors.  This is nicely summarised by a post on the blogging site ukpollingreport.

In a very British way, an argument about money is obscured by lip service paid to patient safety, illustrated beautifully by an interviewee who suggested that junior doctors could vote with their feet and work in Australia; ironic as the Australian health service is privately funded to a greater extent than our own health system. Marketisation is of course a ‘bone of contention’.  In our role in the ATE insurance market we see cases on a daily basis where the NHS has made errors with life changing consequences through clinical-negligence.  Organisations such as Patients Association and AvMA news have for years sought to highlight patient concerns and issues.  To my mind the NHS needs to be reformed so that we can continue to be able to help the growing numbers of people who need ever more expensive treatment.

Us patients do need help at funny times of the day and at weekends, so a system that truly operates on a 24/7 basis is desirable. So out of the magician’s hat the Health Department needs to do more with less, reform the system and probably pay junior doctors fairly (more). Also, for a country that needs more health professionals there seems to be too slow an expansion of University places, it’s cheaper to recruit from overseas.   Good luck Mr Hunt and the BMA but don’t forget us the patients!

TSD

The end of Premium recoverability

In a recent written announcement the Minister of State for Civil Justice (Lord Faulks QC) gave notice that “the Government has decided that no win no fee reforms should now be applied to insolvency proceedings. These provision will come into force for these cases in April 2016.” The change in effect abolished the recoverability of success fees and ATE insurance from losing defendants.

Whilst the announcement has been expected for some time, it will still come as bad news for Insolvency Practitioners, Creditors and Solicitors alike. Yet, it is not all doom and gloom. “What we have learnt from LASPO is that the need and desire for ATE insurance continues despite changes in premium recoverability.” Life (read litigation) must go on, as the saying goes.

In addition, it has already been announced that there will be a Post Implementation Review of the LASPO Act Part 2 reforms between April 2016 and April 2018. The Review, it was announced, will take place towards the end of that period.

April 2016 deadline

Of course, the announcement has created an April 2016 deadline to secure ATE insurance cover (with recoverable premiums). QLP have over 15 years of experience working with Solicitors and Insolvency Practitioners to provide ATE Insurance and Third Party Funding to support recoveries resulting from an Insolvency. For more information, please contact the team on 020 7626 0191.

The marine dispute:

Imagine, if you will, that you are involved in a company incorporated in Singapore.  You have lent a considerable sum of money to a Dubai based entity who has invested the sum in shipbuilding contracts.  A corporate restructuring in Dubai later and the loan agreement comes to an end with the debt remaining unpaid. Unsurprisingly, a dispute arises. Proceedings are issued under English & Welsh law in which you seek to claim the outstanding sum, interest due, as well as your legal costs.

The case has everything – conflict of laws and jurisdictions, applications for injunctions and committal proceedings against the directors when they don’t comply, security for costs, applications to the Court of Appeal, issues over whether the directors had ostensible authority to bind the limited companies to pay, serious question marks over when the contract was formed (notwithstanding the date), extensive applications for E-disclosure and finally, an order for the disputed sums to be paid into Court pending the eventual outcome of the litigation.

The need for Funding:

The problem is that you haven’t the funds to pursue the claim or the wherewithal to pay if you lose, and therefore require both litigation funding and After the Event insurance in order to ensure access to justice.

This scenario closely resembles a case QLP recently insured under its marine binder – that is, our exclusive facility offering dedicated ATE insurance policies for marine claims.  The policy provided a £250,000 Limit of Indemnity (with early settlement discounts applicable to the Premium) to cover Adverse Costs, Counsel’s fees and own disbursements, giving the claimant the confidence to pursue their claim (to trial if necessary).

With cover in place, we were then able to provide access to the Third Party funding required for the claim to progress.  Indeed, having approached the market, we put together a deal for the required £400,000 of Funding at the most competitive rate available – 30% of the claim revenue.

“George Osborne announced yesterday that the small claims track limit for personal injury claims will be increased from £1,000 to £5,000”

A petition is currently taking place in an attempt to keep the small claims track limit for personal injury claims at £1,000

Having reached 10,000 signatures the Government must respond, but at 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament.

For more information see: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/113810

By now, most of you will know that the government is considering the introduction of fixed fees for clinical negligence claims of up to £250,000. (Not another ‘LASPO’?)

As things currently stand, there is no limit on the legal fees that lawyers can charge for running a clinical negligence claim, and according to some “this has allowed lawyers to obtain exorbitant amounts from the NHS, with some claiming as much as ten times the value [of their clients damages] in fees.”  Instead, if the change is brought in, lawyers’ fees would be capped at a percentage of their client’s compensation.

There is no doubt about it, the numbers are eye watering.  Last year the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) spent £1,169,506,598 on clinical negligence claims.  Similarly, “according to the Department of Health, claimant legal costs for cases closed in 2013/14 amounted to 273% of damages awarded in claims between £1,000 and £10,000; 153% for claims between £10,000 and £25,000; 107% for claims between £25,000 and £50,000; 74% for claims between £50,000 and £100,000 and 54% for claims between £100,000 and £250,000.”  (Though how much of this is really down to the way in which claims are defended?)

Whilst a fixed fee regime may help to combat the rising costs of clinical negligence claims, the new limit would be accompanied by real concerns regarding further strain on solicitors’ balance sheets and access to justice from a claimant’s point of view.  This is where QLP come in.  We are already seeing increasing interest in our off-balance sheet disbursement funding facility in advance of any change to the regulations.  See our website or get in touch to find out more.