In their shoes

Compensation amounts paid to claimants who have suffered similar loss can vary considerably, reports Claims Standards Council

The current Ministry of Justice consultation process is looking at how to improve the processes for dealing with personal injury claims, to improve access to justice and, equally importantly, to examine how to make the process more efficient and less costly.

Some things seem fairly uncontroversial. First, the consultation paper appears to signal that the £1000 small claims limit should remain, with other aspects of the claims and justice process capable of improvement to provide for fair compensation. It does seem widely accepted, however, that the limit should be amended – if only to allow for inflation.

Second, most people seem to feel that the fast-track limit is too low. A significant number of claims that have fast-track characteristics in all respects except value, end up in the multi-track process because the claim amount involved exceeds the fast-track limit. Increasing this limit would have the opposite effect in some cases – potentially leading to some complex cases that should be multi-track being caught by the fast-track process because of value. Inevitably any dividing line, wherever drawn, will be as blunt an instrument as ever. But the balance does appear to need shifting, based on the volumes of cases in each category today; and nobody disputes that the courts are capable of discerning such cases and proceeding accordingly.

Whatever processes are prescribed, and however claims may be segmented according to the most appropriate way to manage and resolve them, one overriding question remains regarding the treatment of claimants: how do I perceive ‘justice’? In this context, justice means something more than a clear outcome to a case resolved in court by a judge.