Welcome to No Win No Fee Solicitors
400 British claimants are awaiting a ruling from an American court in New Jersey, which will decide if they can have their personal injury lawsuits against the pharmaceutical company Merck heard in US courts. Merck is fighting the ruling claiming that the foreign cases should be withdrawn and heard in the claimant's own country.
Vioxx was launched in 1999 as a medication for acute pain and arthritis. People in more than 80 countries where it was marketed found relief from pain when using the drug.
AMICUS believes that the proposed changes being recommended by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee will allow negligent employers to escape their obligations because workers having a personal injury claim will no longer feel confident pursuing it in court. Currently, in personal injury claims where the plaintiff is awarded under £1000 they are not able to have their legal costs covered by the defendant.
If the proposed recommendations are implemented, that figure will be raised to £2500 ensuring that nearly half of all people having personal injury claims will not be able to have their legal costs covered. Without legal costs being covered many people will decide not to pursue their case, leaving the door wide open for abuse by employers.
Many clients learn the hard way that "No Win-No Fee" does not mean "Win-No Pay". This murky understanding of the legalities in these cases has left many clients in debt after winning their lawsuits. Changes last year have simplified the regime of "NoWin - No Fee" or conditional fee agreements (CFA's) and the responsibility of making the legalities clear to clients has been laid at the doorstep of solicitors.
The government hopes that this will improve the situation that has garnered 130,000 complaints about CFA's in the files of the Citizens Advice Bureaux since 2000. For some, since the stopping of legal aid, CFA's are the only way in which they can get justice through the legal system. Take the case of David Whitaker.
When one person is injured by another person or company, there is likely to be a dispute about who was to blame and in what amounts. Often the degree of the dispute depends on how much evidence the claiming party is able to accumulate and what kind of compensation claims they are making.
Rarely, the guilty party simply compensates the injured party in order to avoid a hassle. Sometimes these cases are resolved through mediation between the parties involved or with the help of a professional assessor. Or perhaps the insurance company of the faulted party will feel that the evidence is strong enough to warrant a settlement offer of some kind.
|
