The federal government also claims that you’ve a insufficient balance problem system
Litigation - a right or an unaffordable luxury?
This week (Monday 30th January) Peers will discuss part 2 with the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in the House of Lords. Included within part 2 are proposals that will prohibit the recoverability of ATE premiums.
This proposal will, I really believe, help it become even more difficult for SMEs, and personal individuals, to litigate against better resourced opponents. Not only will this become an important deterrent to justified claims however it may also have an adverse effect on Treasury revenues.
When introducing the Bill in the home of Commons a year ago, our creator Chancellor stated that “there is too much financial litigation“. This is as absurd since the Home Secretary saying “there is simply too much policing”. The commercial and social wellbeing of your nation requires that the citizen can enforce regulations for himself. The federal government also claims that you’ve a insufficient balance problem system. I have faith that that precisely what is balanced or not will be based on upon instances from a particular case and also the method of the parties.
However, whilst largely based on an absolutely false take a look at the litigation landscape, the Government’s position just isn’t wholly without merit. It is the case that ATE insurance fees raise the total cost of litigation. It can also be the situation that the well-funded party can nevertheless buy ATE insurance and therefore impose even greater pressure on his opponent who may already be weaker. It can be however incorrect that abolishing recoverable ATE premiums will restore balance as the government claims, neither could it be true that you will find there’s compensation culture exploited by irresponsible and dishonest claimants.
History has shown it is not easy to cut the expense of English civil litigation. Many have tried and failed. What is critical is made for us all to get the way to handle the expenses. A few things i suggest would be that the balance must be achieved by the people used by the reason, namely the judiciary, not by legislative changes of omnibus, and so necessarily unfair application.
I believe the answer is to allow for ATE insurance with recoverable premiums where it’s important to do so to prevent hardship.
Judges are actually beginning look hard on the costs of litigation at the beginning of in a situation - with cost estimates to the overall case now being commonly supplied at an early on with the proceedings. It would therefore be not at all hard for your judge to consider the ways of the parties and to authorise ATE insurance with recoverable premiums to redress the balance where appropriate.
The opportunity may additionally be utilized for judges to exercise their powers to cap costs at the outset as to the they think are reasonable amounts. This has to be balancing exercise at the start of the situation, avoiding the trials of economic strength that happen to be a common feature of modern English litigation.
The goal towards greater effectiveness and efficiency in the legal aid product is laudable, but the best system that does not help those who work in need to get usage of justice can be a system that will, ultimately, be less efficient and value more.
In a civilised society, use of justice is the right from the citizen. It won’t deserve to be coloured by political invective about “compensationitis”. I hope that government entities thinks again, amends the balance before it is too far gone, and retains the supply of ATE insurance in case you require it.


