Injury played huge part in England debacle: Dhoni

CARDIFF: India suffered a humiliating whitewash in both Test and one-day series in their disastrous England tour but captainMahendra Singh Dhoni said that injury to several key team members played a huge part in the debacle.

"I have not seen so many injuries in the last five years. To see 9-11 players get injured in one series has been shocking. In the ODI series we also did not have luck," he said at the press conference after India lost the fifth and final ODI by six wickets.

"If you look at the first two Tests, we were left with three bowlers. If your bowling starts looking weak, the pressure piles up on batsmen. You cannot carry a team consistently on just one department.

"If Zaheer was there in the first Test and we could have pressed advantage in the second innings instead of relying on part-timers. It could have looked different. But it's important what we did. There is no point in sulking," Dhoni said.

Dhoni, however, said that his side would not be thinking for revenge when England tour India next month to play five one-day matches.

"You should not have such a feeling. If you have revenge in your mind, you become desperate and start putting pressure on the whole side. It's better to stick to basics," he said.

"We also would have to see how many of the 9-11 players who are injured are now fit and have played some matches. We have to see who all are available for selection."

Asked if he thought injured players should straightaway be allowed to get back into the side without having a few matches under their belt, he said, "It's tough. We have to exactly see what kind of injury it is.

"It is good if someone has some matches under his belt. But it's difficult because you need experience in a line-up. You try to balance it. You don't want your bowling department to look completely fresh."

Dhoni blamed the conditions and injury to Munaf Patel as the reason for India's six-wicket defeat in the fifth and final match here.

"To have Munaf injured after four overs, broke the rhythm of our bowling. The ball was also getting very wet. This was the fifth time we lost the toss and it became very difficult for spinners," he reasoned.

The Indian captain underlined the point that the practice games should not be an official fixture where only 11 players can play. Flexibility with numbers of players who can play is important for practice games.

"We were not able to use practice games in best possible manner. The first game was official and we could not play more than 11 players. Just before a Test match, the players had to be on the field for 90 overs. The second practice game was the same," he said.

"We will make sure there is a MoU in place that practice games should be just practice games. You should be able to play more than 12 players. If I am asked to play an official game, I would prefer playing a Test match than these practice games," he added.

Dhoni held a high view of the present England side but was not prepared to concede they were the current best side in the world.

"England are a very good side, irrespective of the format they are playing. As they play more and more cricket, they would get only better. But it's difficult to say if they are the best side. The top 3-4 sides are all good. They are among the best sides.
"In sub-continent, it might be different but they can still get the reverse swing to control the batsmen. England's batting line up also looks settled. Broad and Bresnan can not only bowl fast and quick but they can also bat which means England bats very deep," he said.

Despite playing without a break for a long time, Dhoni gave the hint that he could be turning out in the Champions League Twenty20 rather than take a break.

"There are four games to be played at the league stage in 10 days. We will see how I stand before the start of the Champions League Twenty20. Next 3-4 days will be complete rest. Our first game is on 24th. I am hoping my fitness does not get worse." 
Asked about the Pakistan fast bowler Mohammad Aamer admitting to spot-fixing, Dhoni said, "It's something seriously wrong. People might talk about forgiveness but for me match-fixing and spot-fixing is going against the nation. It's my personal view."

BRIT CLAIMS: Taxpayer pay £10million bill for prisoner injury claims

BRIT CLAIMS: Taxpayer pay £10million bill for prisoner injury claims

The Governments Personal Injury Proposals Come Under Fire from Campaigners and Lawyers

Research commissioned by the Access to Justice Group and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has found that many people who have been able to make a personal injury compensation claim through the No Win No Fee system would have had their access to justice denied if the current Government proposals for changing the legal system had been in force.

Over the past five years there have been over three million personal injury claims which means the result of these changes could be hundreds of thousands of people who will be victims of accidents through no fault of their own will be denied compensation if the current government proposals, largely based upon a report by Lord Jackson, successfully make their way through Parliament.

The Ministry of Justice is looking to completely overhaul the current system amid ongoing fears of a growing ‘compensation culture’. Campaigners against the proposals point out that the ‘compensation culture’ is a myth and use the report by Lord Young, commissioned last year by David Cameron, as evidence.

In his report of October 2010, Common Sense, Common Safety, Lord Young stated ‘The problem of the compensation culture prevalent in society today is one of perception rather than reality,’ 

The new proposals include making claimants responsible for their solicitors’ success fee as opposed to the current system where the defendant picks up the cost of the claimants legal success fees. They believe this will encourage competition and drive down costs however many people involved with the current process believe this will be at the expense of justice, especially for those on low and medium incomes who may be put off launching a compensation claim.

Former Labour MP Andrew Dismore who has been leading the Access to Justice Group said: ‘The government must think again and not give in to the special pleading of the fat cat multinational insurance companies, who are the sole beneficiaries of their plans.

‘They will save millions of pounds at the expense of ordinary people who have been hurt on the roads or at work. The government’s plans are Draconian and will end access to justice for the less well off.

‘The system we have now works well and has huge satisfaction rates from those who use it.’

Personal injury costs to approach £10bn

Costs faced by the personal injury insurance industry are likely to rise from £8.4bn in 2010 to £9.7bn by 2014 driven by the growth in the number of motor personal injury claims according to a report by Datamonitor.

The market analysts added the rise would continue despite new regulations being brought in to tackle the problem.

The report revealed that it is motor claims that continued to dominate the personal injury market as a whole accounting for just under 80% of the total despite a fall in the number of road traffic accidents. It added that employers' liability, public liability, and clinical negligence all contributed to the market, but to a lesser degree.

Barbara Kubis-Labiak, analyst at Datamonitor, said: "The rising costs of motor personal injury claims were one of the key reasons for the review of civil litigation costs by Lord Justice Jackson.

"With the continued aggressive TV and marketing campaigns by solicitors and claims management companies, there has been a rise in disproportionate claims, with exaggerated claim sizes and unnecessary costs, making regulatory changes essential."

However, according to some solicitors and insurers who spoke to Datamonitor for their report, even if all the changes suggested by the Jackson review were implemented, personal injury claims costs would continue to rise until 2014 at least, albeit at a slower rate.

Referral fees
The report suggested that insurers largely agreed that banning referral fees would not result in driving down costs, as it would not do anything to address the issue of high solicitors' costs. Datamonitor claimed that according to the insurers and solicitors interviewed for the report, neither industry will start reducing fees.

Ms Kubis-Labiak continued: "Although we believe that changes to regulations over the next few years will do something to tackle rising costs, this will only result in a marginal slowdown."

She concluded: "In fact, after taking into consideration all of the expected changes, we have only revised our long-term forecast for the 2010-14 growth of claims costs down from 5.4% to 3.7%. Therefore costs will remain a problem and time as well as further changes will be needed to finally bring costs under control."

‘No win, no fee’ change could be big deal for travel

Agents and operators could face fewer personal injury claims as a result of legal reform proposed last week.

The changes to the “no win, no fee” systemproposed by appeal court judge Lord Justice Jackson could “change the landscape” of claims against travel companies, some lawyers believe.

Under the existing system, which has been criticised for encouraging speculative claims, losing claimants do not have to pay legal costs.

The reforms propose claimants should foot the legal bill themselves if they lose. The potential costs of claiming are also set to increase under plans to scrap insurance covering lost cases.

Defendants would largely have to pay their own legal costs, whether they win or lose, and will have to pay the claimant’s legal costs should the claimant win.

Abdulanesh Alaraqu director of Brit Claims said the reforms would discourage speculative cases.

“At the moment, there is an ethos of ‘we might as well have a go’, but if the costs to pay should people lose increase, they may not be so willing to take action,” he said.

“It means lawyers will only want to take on strong cases. This will change the legal landscape of claims against travel companies.”

Claimants who win will be eligible for compensation payments that are 10% higher than now.

However, travel firms could still pay less if they lose, because a cap would be introduced on what a claimant’s lawyer can claim as a success fee.

The reforms are due to start in 2012.

Patrick Snowball: Dealing with the claims influx down under

Suncorp CEO Patrick Snowball speaks to Jonathan Swift about his recent experiences in Australia and New Zealand dealing with the large volumes of claims, and how the business managed.

Suncorp CEO Patrick Snowball admits he never saw anything like the volume of claims he has experienced in the last 12 months in Australia and New Zealand, during his two decades at Aviva.

In the UK he was involved with the 1991 windstorms and the 2000/01 floods. However, speaking exclusively to Post Online, he notes that although one recent downpour in Australia resulted in "flooding equivalent to the size of the whole of France and half of Germany," it only cost A$130m (£83.4m), just under a third of the 18 minute hailstorm in March last year, which brought about insured damage worth A$350m.

Huge weather extremes
"That cost was huge. We would usually get 65 000 claims a month that time of year, but that March we got an additional 67 000 claims, because we also had Perth floods. But you do get these huge extremes linked to micro weather patterns," he adds.

Reflecting on the more recent incidents of flooding at the tail end of 2010, and the response of the Australian Stock Exchange to his two and a half year year tenure, he continues: "The general consensus at the 2010/11 half year is that we are on track, or ahead of, the re-engineering plan we set out at the beginning.

"We always said it would take 18 months to turn the general insurance business around, two years for the bank and three years for the life group. And we are exactly on track with each of them.

"So we had a very good reception from the shareholders. Obviously everyone would have liked to see more of a dividend, but usually we would have expected A$230m of adverse weather, and we had A$182m on top of that."

Reinsurance programme full
Since the turn of the year, Mr Snowball's business has also seen the Brisbane floods, another earthquake in New Zealand, Cyclone Yasi and the floods in Melbourne.

"So we are indicating that our [reinsurance] cat programme is absolutely full. We do have aggregate cover, which acts as a shock absorber on the profit and loss account, and that has gone too. Last year we had $150m left at the end of the year," Mr Snowball comments.

"So it has been the most abnormal year. But it has also been amazing to see how well this business works under pressure. Because last year we had six insurance companies, six claims teams, and we would sprint all over the place. But in October - for instance - we unveiled a single assessor brand, combining all of our loss adjusting and vehicle assessment teams. So wherever we have been since then, we have been able to act as one company, with many brands."

Staggered by staff response
Mr Snowball admits that he is "staggered" by how people have coped during the recent hard times, but adds that the business has been able to gain some collateral out of the adverse weather because, for instance, in Queensland, it is the only company that gives flood cover. As a result of this - and the fact he claims Suncorp insures 41% of Australian households - it has been "front of mind for everybody".

Although Mr Snowball may have never seen so many costly incidents in such a short space of time while at Aviva, one thing he has been used to is insurance coming under the political microscope in the wake of major claims events in the UK.

"There is going to be a huge debate about whether earthquake cover is going to continue," he says. "The principle of insurance is like the isosceles triangle, so your breadth is cover is basically your depth of exposure. But the problem in New Zealand is that on the surface, there is an isosceles triangle, but what is emerging is that the breadth is too narrow for the depth.

"We have got some very significant losses, and reinsurers are more worried about this than they are about Japan, because my sense is that the exposure to that event is not so great."

Top three nat cat programme
Suncorp is set to renew its reinsurance programme on the 30 June, and Mr Snowball notes that the group has "one of the three largest cat programmes in the world", with 75 reinsurers on the panel, despite the fact - in percentage terms - Australia only represents one percent of the global insurance premium.

Returning to flooding, Mr Snowball notes in 2008 the Australian insurance market looked at introducing a single wording, but that it was turned down by consumer bodies as anti-competitive.

"Out of [the recent adverse weather] will come more attention to flood cover, and there will be more transparency with the wording, and there will be more insurers writing this business."

No government intervention needed
Mr Snowball mentions that 31% of the population have flood cover, and only a third of people had flood insurance in Brisbane. He adds that rival Insurance Australia Group, which offers this cover in New South Wales, may "step up to the plate" in more territories, adding: "What we are saying to the Australian government is it should not step in, because there is a commercial solution, and it is already carrying huge reserves going forward."

However, in the short term Mr Snowball has fears it may become a political football, commenting: "My only concern is that some politicians are being a little bit vocal in saying it does not matter if people have not got insurance, you should pay the claim anyway. And that is a serious thing, and the moral hazard is huge. But I think that has [after some initial noise this has] virtually gone."

Mr Snowball reflects: "The halo effect [of the recent events] on the Suncorp brand has been great. It has cost a lot of money and we have had to put up our rates, but it has had a halo effect."

Flat out for six months
He concludes household rates were put up 10% after last year's Melbourne floods, and he expects them to go up 10% again.

As for Mr Snowball and his staff, he notes that the business has been "flat out for six months", quipping: "We have travelled such a long way, so quickly and we just need a breather."

Insurance Claims: UK insurance sector volumes and profitability incr...

Insurance Claims: UK insurance sector volumes and profitability incr...: "The UK financial services sector has seen growth for the third quarter in a row, according to a new report from the Confederation of Britis..."

Insurance Claims: Young Italian insurers’ association launches in Lo...

Insurance Claims: Young Italian insurers’ association launches in Lo...: "The Unione dei Giovani Assicuratori e Riassicuratori Italiani has officially launched in London to welcome members working in other countri..."

Insurance Claims: Towergate recruits Heath Lambert team in Aberdeen

Insurance Claims: Towergate recruits Heath Lambert team in Aberdeen: "Towergate Insurance Aberdeen has recruited Mark Webster and his team from Heath Lambert to lead the expansion of its operation.Mr Webster j..."

Reinsurance market performs as intended

Aon Benfield has released its latest Reinsurance Market Outlook report, which provides an overview of the trends witnessed at the 1st April reinsurance renewals.

The intermediary reveals that despite “a string of meaningful insurance events” and associated adjustments in pricing, the decline in US and European property catastrophe rates continues.

Few European programmes renew at 1st April but with regard to the US, the season saw property catastrophe rates for programmes including hurricane risks decrease by 5% to 10%.

Furthermore, the broker is predicting that the June and July renewals period will find price changes of flat to down 5%, for US hurricane-driven programmes.

The Japanese earthquake on 11th March did affect the renewals process, as many insurers opted to extend current programmes while losses were being assessed.

Where Japanese renewals took place, the costs of typhoon programmes increased by 5% to 10%, while most earthquake programmes increased within a range of 25% to 50%.

Aon Benfield Analytics chairman, Bryon Ehrhart, sums up: “The reinsurance market remains functional with its existing capital base, and we do not anticipate the need for material new capital flows into the reinsurance market to satisfy insurer demand for catastrophe reinsurance based upon the global events to date.”

He adds: “Throughout the recent, significant global events, reinsurance responded to the needs of global and regional insurers as intended, with material volatility shifted to reinsurers from the balance sheets and income statements of global and regional insurers.”

Also of note, reinsurance programmes covering New Zealand, where a second major earthquake struck Christchurch in February, do not renew at 1st April.

Last month, Aon Benfield formed a Market Analysis team within Aon Benfield Analytics in a move aimed at allowing Aon Benfield Research to focus entirely on academic and industry collaboration.

Lord Chancellor faces legal action over discount rate review

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) says it is taking legal action because the Lord Chancellor has failed to review the discount rate, despite announcing in November of last year that a review was taking place.

The discount rate is used to calculate the amount deducted from an injured person’s compensation to account for any income he or she may receive from investing their damages.

In 2001, the rate was set at 2.5%, based on yields generated by index-linked government stock (ILGS).

Since then, yields on ILGS have gradually declined and according to APIL, over the last three years the average gross yield has been less than 1%.

APIL has now issued proceedings for a judicial review, stating that the Lord Chancellor has failed to complete a review or provide a timetable for it.

The Association’s president, Muiris Lyons, says: “We are gravely disappointed that the Government has failed to carry out its review as injured people are continuing to be undercompensated, in some cases, by hundreds of thousands of pounds.”

He adds: “It has been nine months since we first brought this issue to the attention of the Lord Chancellor and we find it unacceptable that no meaningful progress has been made since then.”

car bomb attack claims police officer's life

A 25-year-old police officer has been killed by a booby-trap car bomb in Northern Ireland, police have confirmed.

The device exploded under the vehicle outside his home in Highfield Close, off the Gortin Road in Omagh, Co Tyrone, just before 4pm.

It is understood the 25-year-old was a new recruit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and was a Catholic.

Politicians north and south of the border condemned the bomb attack on the residential housing estate.

Shadow Northern Ireland secretary Shaun Woodward said: "This evil and cowardly attack will sicken everyone across Northern Ireland. These crimes are targeted on those who protect the community.

"We all deeply mourn the brave young man whose life was taken by this savage crime. We all have a duty to stop those behind it from succeeding."

Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said his party was determined that those responsible would not set back the progress of the peace and political process.

Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore, the Republic of Ireland's Foreign Affairs Minister and deputy leader, warned that those behind such violence have no mandate and are acting contrary to the democratic will of the people of Ireland, north and south.

The blast will send shivers through the people of Omagh, where 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when a Real IRA car bomb exploded in 1998.

Reaction to Jackson reforms (claims management reform)

Following the close of the consultation on February 14th, the Brit Claims was totally bewildered at Tuesday’s announcement bearing in mind the Ministry of Justice had received in excess of 600 responses to the Green Paper, plus statistical evidence. It seems most unlikely that each one of those responses could have been given the appropriate consideration they deserved, which, coupled with the Ministry’s lack of hard evidence from an impact study, could only lead the Brit Claims to deduce that the full implementation of the Jackson report was somewhat pre-determined.

The unintended consequences of this are all going to impact the deserving claimant and affect their access to justice. By extending the RTA portal into employer’s liability, public liability and low value clinical negligence claims, together with the raising of the fast track claims limits, means that 95% of claims will now be dealt with in this manner. How can the Ministry justify these wholesale changes to the system for 5% of the remaining claims? It is totally disproportionate.

Claims management companies and lawyers are being blamed for the rising cost of insurance premiums but as the Transport Committee identified it is the insurers who are the largest generators of referral fees (without the consent of their policy holders) and in reality if they hadn’t priced their premiums incorrectly over the last 5 years on the aggregator sites, trying to gain market share, then they wouldn’t have been left looking for someone else to blame.

There are too many unanswered questions and far more work needs to be done prior to any sort of implementation.

The show isn’t over UNTIL the Bill is signed by the Queen: so there is still EVERYTHING to play for in persuading MPs that Lord Jackson is wrong, Lord Young is wrong and the Government is wrong, and that they should think again how this legislation will affect Access to Justice for the ordinary man and woman.

WILL YOU STAND AND FIGHT FOR YOUR INDUSTRY?

The battle is now well and truly on.

I am sure you will by now know the outcome of the Government’s so called consultation on implementing Jackson.

Earlier this week, we circulated a short briefing on the main headlines and also a briefing on the next wave of consultation for “reform”.

The Government intends to abolish recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums.

This is bad news for personal injury claimants and those who represent them. The only winners are the insurance lobby.

It is obvious to all we are up against a foe who has no regard for access to justice, and will not allow the facts to get in the way of ideologically driven change for the benefit of the insurers.

This is your chance to understand how Jackson will affect you.

The show isn’t over until the Bill is signed by the Queen: so there is still everything to play for!

MPs, and leading industry figures will give you their insight into implementing Jackson; hear about the future of the sector from experts on Alternative Business Structures and the RTAPortal. Hear from the Access To Justice Action Group about the continued fight to change the legislation

Claim Management, are the MOJ regulations toothless? At street level it appears to us that there are many people / companies providing claims management facilities who are not and have no intention of being regulated.

Personal injury claim management.

Every single time someone tries to influence change in anything in life you have three types of reaction. 

Those who oppose change blindly, usually without any real understanding of what the change represents because it is a knee jerk reaction to an anticipated pain in the pocket. Their normal words are announcement has been done but cannot be implemented.

Those who will say that it doesn't go far enough but they fail to comprehend that progress isn't made in leaps and bounds but in tiny steps. Their every steps is perceived in negative thought, juts make their heart believe all is well.

Seldom do any of these first two types ever have ideas of their own or even consider for a second being constructive because it is much less effort to heckle than to try and solve a problem. 

The third type is the silent majority (and I still have trust that they are a majority) will accept the change for what it is, simply a step forward on the evolutionary chain so that things can get from how they were... to how they should be. This category is mainly academically educated.

I don't believe that the regulations are toothless, they are simply a first step. There are problems - yes, but there are also people working very hard to iron out those problems. At times people are being imposters and disguising solicitors with use of authorised companies details, in the name of sister company or we are simply working under the umbrella.

Unfortunately ever since Brit Claims has been regulated (not much long ago) it has been victim of such fraud. However at present matters are under investigation, but this cowboy style mechanics and cab runners wants to advice legal matters to clients, despite having very very limited knowledge about it, in the hope of getting easy and quick money through injury claim. This very attitude undermines those who wants to really help clients, and give legal and fair advice. http://www.britclaims.co.uk

No win no fee reforms divide insurers

The Government plans to make claimants who win their court case pay their own solicitor's "success fee" and the premium for any After-The-Event (ATE) insurance out of the compensation they are awarded.

The decision comes despite disagreement from around 70% of those who responded to the Ministry of Justice's November 2010 consultation paper.

Other measures to be implemented by the Government include a 10% increase in general damages; a 25% cap on the success fee that can be deducted from damages in personal injury cases, and a system of 'qualified one way costs shifting' (QOCS). This will mean that in almost all cases personal injury claimants who lose their action will not be liable to pay the defendant's legal costs.

Claimant representatives and after-the-event (ATE) insurers, however, maintain that abolishing the recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums will restrict access to justice and put claimants' damages awards at risk.

Defendant representatives and general liability insurers, on the other hand, are in favour of the changes, pointing to the disproportionate costs caused by the current regime where, according to one insurer, claimant's costs in personal injury claims in 2010 represented, on average, 142% of the compensation received.

In a response paper published this week the MoJ said its reforms were necessary to rebalance the civil litigation system in England and Wales:

"Some weaker cases which are currently brought will be deterred," (80-page / 1.05 MB PDF). "Taken as a whole, the package of measures will restore a much needed sense of proportion and fairness to the current regime – not by denying access to justice, but by restoring fair balance to the system. Defendants should benefit from more proportionate total legal expenses, with legal costs for the NHS falling by around a third."

In a separate consultation paper also published on 29th March, the MoJ set out further proposals for actions brought in county courts, including raising the small claims limit so that more cases are dealt with quickly on an informal basis, and extending the scope of the streamlined process for dealing with low value road traffic accident personal injury claims introduced in April 2010.

Recoverability

The reforms implement key recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson in his January 2010 report on civil litigation funding. Central to those recommendations was the issue of recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums.

At present many civil actions (and the vast majority of personal injury claims) are brought on a 'no win no fee' basis under a conditional fee agreement (CFA) with a lawyer, backed up by ATE insurance which covers the claimant against the risk of having to pay the defendant's legal costs if the claimant loses the case.

If the claimant wins, the defendant (or its insurers) must, in addition to the claimant's solicitor's basic costs, pay the lawyer's success fee and an enhanced ATE premium. But if the claimant loses the case, no ATE premium or success fee is payable and the ATE insurance will cover the claimant's liability to pay the defendant's legal costs. As a result, cases can be brought at no financial risk to the claimant.

Under the Government reforms, however, recoverability will be abolished and claimants will have to pay the success fee and premium themselves. There will be one limited exception. In clinical negligence cases, ATE premium relating to the cost of expert reports will remain recoverable.

In addition, in personal injury cases, the amount that can be taken out of a claimant's damages to pay the success fee will be capped at 25%. This means damages covering care and loss will be ring-fenced from any success fee deduction, protecting future care costs.

As part of the package, the Government will also introduce a 10% increase in 'non-pecuniary' general damages for all claimants, such as damages awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

Responses

Seventy one per cent of those who responded to the November 2010 consultation paper disagreed with the proposal to abolish recoverability of success fees, with views clearly divided along claimant and defendant lines. Similarly, 69% of respondents thought ATE premium should remain recoverable from the defendant.

There was more consensus in favour of the 10% increase in general damages, although in most cases this was because respondents thought damages awards are too low.

Even though it will increase their compensation bill, however, most general liability insurers who responded supported the increase as part of an interlocking package of reform.

Qualified one way costs shifting

QOCS will remove the risk that, if he loses the case, a claimant will be liable to pay the defendant's costs - except in limited circumstances.  Those are: 'exceptional behaviour' (where the claimant has acted fraudulently, frivolously or unreasonably) and where the claimant is very wealthy.

The proposal has been criticised because claimants will not know for certain from the outset whether or not they will qualify for QOCS.

At the moment, the Government is only proposing to introduce QOCS for personal injury cases including clinical negligence claims. The normal costs principle that the loser pays will continue to apply in other cases.

One consequence - not unwelcome to the MoJ - is that QOCS will drastically reduce the need for claimants to take out ATE insurance, which covers them against the risk of having to pay the defendant's costs. The paper adds: "When they do, they will pay the premium themselves, which will encourage the market to set more reasonable premiums".

Other measures

The MoJ plans to tighten up the 'part 36' rules on settlement offers. An additional sanction (equivalent to 10% of the value of the claim) will be payable by a defendant who does not accept a claimant's reasonable offer that is not beaten at trial.

There will also be a new general rule that only reasonable and proportionate costs may be recovered from the losing party, taking into account the value, complexity and importance of the claim.

In addition, the Government proposes to lift the current restriction on contingency fees (damages-based agreements or DBAs) in the courts of England and Wales.

DBAs are another type of 'no win no fee' arrangement where the lawyer's fee is related to the amount of damages awarded rather than the work done by the lawyer. If a claimant wins the case, the costs recovered in the normal way from the other side would be set off against the 'DBA fee' due to the claimant's lawyer. In personal injury cases, the amount lawyers could deduct from the damages would be capped at 25%.

Next steps

Changes to the CFA regime will require the Government to pass primary legislation while some of the other changes can be effected by amendments to the court rules.

The paper does not include a timetable for this, but the Government says it wants to see the measures implemented together, as a package.

2012 Olympics chief hits back in cash row over claims of £400m profit

London 2012's finance chief on branded as 'untrue' claims that he predicted the Olympics will make a £400million profit as the cash row with the British Olympic Association took a further twist. 

The forceful response by Neil Wood is aimed at claims made by BOA chairman Lord Moynihan in a letter to all Olympic sports last week.

Moynihan is scheduled to meet with the Government on Tuesday  morning in an attempt to resolve the rift. 

The latest escalation relates to the BOA writing in a letter to its membership of national sporting bodies that Lord Coe's organising committee (LOCOG) told them the Games would make a surplus of £400m. 

The BOA want a 20 per cent share of that pot before it is potentially diluted by the cost of the Paralympics.

Moynihan is scheduled to meet with the Government on Tuesday  morning in an attempt to resolve the rift. 

The latest escalation relates to the BOA writing in a letter to its membership of national sporting bodies that Lord Coe's organising committee (LOCOG) told them the Games would make a surplus of £400m. 

The BOA want a 20 per cent share of that pot before it is potentially diluted by the cost of the Paralympics.

UK 'should cut links to European Court of Human Rights

The government should cut its ties with the "expansionist" European Court of Human Rights, says a report by a right-leaning think tank.

The Policy Exchange report says the recent row over prisoners' voting rights highlights the issue.

The report, written by a former government adviser, Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, says the UK has become "subservient" to the Strasbourg court.

He says it also ignores the traditional British freedom of the press.

The report claims the 47 Strasbourg judges have "virtually no democratic legitimacy" and are poorly qualified compared to Britain's own senior judges.

Lord Hoffman, a former Law Lord, who wrote the foreword to the report, said Strasbourg has "taken upon itself an extraordinary power to micromanage the legal systems of the member states".

The report says the ECHR is a "virtually unaccountable supra-national bureaucracy".

The row over voting rights for prisoners was sparked by a judgment from the ECHR in 2005.

The court upheld an appeal by convicted killer John Hirst, who said Britain had breached the European Convention on Human Rights by disenfranchising him.

The judgement meant the UK government was forced to allow prisoners to vote but has tried to limit it to those who were sentenced to less than four years in jail.

Blair Gibbs, Head of Crime and Justice at Policy Exchange, said: "Votes for prisoners has brought to public attention the growing conflict between judges and the wishes of our own elected parliament.

'Strayed beyond remit'

"On this issue, judges in Strasbourg have strayed well beyond their remit and have casually trampled on the rights of Parliament and the role of MPs to decide these essentially political questions.

"The public favour such cases being decided in the UK, not by foreign judges sitting in a remote court."