Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Faulks (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 March 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.


Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, I should like briefly to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said. I entirely endorse his comments. One of the problems with ATE premiums is that they are, in effect, unchallengeable because there is an assertion of what a case costs a particular litigant and, when it comes to an assessment, no alternative is put forward. Thereby, a defendant will always have to pay that. My second and final point is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said in earlier debates that the Government were proposing to increase bereavement damages by 10 per cent, along with damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity—which, of course, are general damages assessed by judges. I understand that this proposal was made because those damages are statutory and there would need to be a formal amendment or some other device. I would be happy to accept the assurance, which I understand to be coming, that QOCS is on the way and that there will be the appropriate method of bringing it in.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c300 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Disadvantaged Damages Advisory services Asbestosis Asbestos Legal profession Health services Fees and charges Human rights Legal aid scheme Liability Environment Exemptions Injuries Insolvency Insurance Legal Services Commission Legal costs Industrial diseases Property transfer Negligence Mesothelioma Pneumoconiosis Trade unions Telephone services Conditional fee agreements
Legislation
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk