Month: February 2012

  • The Phone Hacking Scandal and Compensation Claimed

    The revelation of the former News of the World’s phone hacking practises came as a huge shock to the public.  As enquiries continue the UK is slowly starting to realise the extent of these practises and how deeply they run throughout the whole of the media world.  When The Guardian came across evidence to indicate Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked, the public started to realise that it wasn’t only celebrities who could be victim to journalists malpractice, but rather that ordinary members of the public were (and potentially are) at risk.  The Metropolitan Police have estimated that up to 5,795 individuals in total have been victims of phone hacking and are therefore due compensation.  Below is a summary of some of the more high-profile compensation cases which have come about due to phone hacking.

    The Phone Hacking Scandal: a Brief Summary

    The News of the World had first been accused of phone hacking as far back as 2003 and by March 2010 the paper had spend over £2 million settling legal cases with victims of phone hacking, including a 2006 case involving the hacking of Prince William’s phone. In 2010 with more and more civil cases being made against NotW, and certain police investigations, the Met started to realise how wide-spread and entrenched phone hacking practises were within the paper, and therefore launched a more thorough investigation.

    Initially it was believed that only those in the public eye were victims, but with the revelation that the abducted schoolgirl Milly Dowler had had her phone hacked after she had gone missing, the public and police started to realise that anyone who could give a good story was at risk.  It came out that British soldiers and victims of the 7/7 attacks were also hacked.  When this startling information was revealed the government launched a public enquiry into media practises across the board known as the Leveson enquiry which began in July 2011.

    High Profile Compensation Cases

    By the 20th january 2012 37 phone hacking cases had been settled and amongst these were some well known celebrities.

    Jude Law: Jude Law received £130,000 plus legal costs in a no win, no fee claim for damages done to him as a result of phone hacking.  Law claimed the personal information which was perpetually leaked to the public via the tabloid paper started to make him distrustful of his close friends.  His ex-wife Sadia Frost also made a no win, no fee claim and won £50, 000 in damages.  She claimed that the phone hacking practises made her distrustful of Law and impacted significantly upon their relationship.

    John Prescott’s Chief of Staff: When John Prescott was deputy prime minister it has been discovered that the NotW hacked the phone of his chief of staff, Joan Hammell.  The paper were reportedly only hoping to gain information about an alleged affair between Prescott and a secretary, but since Joan Hammell was cleared to highest possible level of security, the hacking also posed a huge security risk.  Hammell received £40,000 in compensation.

    Hugh Grant: In some ways spear heading the campaign by celebrities to bring the media to justice, Hugh Grant has become an outspoken critic of media practises and appeared at the Leveson Enquiry to give evidence of his experience.  He recorded a conversation between himself and Paul McMullan, a former editor at the NotW, where McMullan openly admits to the practise of phone hacking.  Grant has also accused the Mail on Sunday of hacking his phone.

    If you think you might have been at risk of phone-hacking the best thing to do is contact your local police station with an enquiry.  From there you may very well be able to launch a no win, no fee claim.

     

    +Richard Meggitt

  • The Access to Justice Act and the Origins of No Win, No Fee

    The Access to Justice Act or the no win, no fee law was first proposed in 1999 and came into force in 2000.  It was designed to make it easier for those with a genuine personal injury case to be able to make a claim more and reduce the financial burden placed upon the government by the previous compensation process.  When it first came out the public were bombarded with no win, no fee adverts encouraging them to make personal injury claims under the promise of no financial risk.  Some argue that the introduction of this law has created a compensation culture similar to that found in America where members of the public attempt to claim compensation for miniscule and insignificant accidents. But what’s the truth behind these claims?  Below is an explanation of the access to justice act, how it changed the landscape of personal injury claims and whether it has achieved its original aims.

    The Law Before

    Before 2000 if you’d suffered a work accident, road traffic accident or any injury that wasn’t your fault you could make a personal injury claim.  The legal fees would either be met by you or, if you couldn’t afford it, by the government.  The government decided that this was costing them too much money so came up with the access to justice solution.

    The Introduction of “No Win, No Fee” 

    It’s a well known phrase but not all people really understand exactly what it means.  No win, no fee does not mean no win, no cost incurred. In legal terms it’s known as the Conditional Fee Agreement.  A CFA is most basically an agreement where legal fees only become payable in certain circumstances, so in the case of personal injury claims, only if the case is won.  In most cases the other party, who has lost the case, will pay the winner’s legal fees so if you’re successful you won’t have to pay out a penny in legal costs.

    On top of legal costs, the lawyer will also received an “uplift payment” as a reward for winning.  This means that they can afford to lose a few cases as they make more than their legal fees when they win, so they can therefore offer you the “no win, no fee” agreement.  If you lose your case, generally speaking, you will not have to pay legal costs.

    In some cases however there may be costs incurred by the losing party, like paying the other party’s legal fees and these can fall to you personally.  It’s imperative then that you communicate clearly and frequently with your lawyer and ask them thorough questions to clarify exactly what your position will be in all the potential outcomes of you claim.

    Lawyers obviously want to win cases, so often won’t take on a case that they don’t think will win.  If they take on your case then, they think there’s a reasonable enough chance of winning so you won’t have to incur any legal fees.

    Has it done what it set out to do? 

    The clues in the name, the Access to Justice Act aimed to make compensation more accessible to those who are owed it.  It’s certainly true that those with genuine compensation claims are more willing to come forward as they now understand that they won’t be at risk if they do so.  The problem is many believe it has also encouraged people seeking to “get rich quick” to either make up claims, or put themselves at risk in order to make a case.

    Many argue that since lawyers themselves have little interest in taking on cases that won’t win, those trying their luck are turned away at the first post by the people who would represent them.  What one could argue however is that certain bodies involved in the PI world are trying to create a compensation culture.  Claims management companies encourage people to contact them just to see if they have a case and often end up charging them without providing a proper service.

    In October 2011 a law was brought in to prevent the selling of details of people who have been in accidents between companies.  We’ve all had the occasional text message telling us we’re entitled to a certain amount of compensation, and if you’re down on money these can be very tempting. The 2011 law is meant to ensure that this practise is wiped out, hopefully bolstering up the good work that no win, no fee can do for the public and ensuring those with genuine compensation claims are no longer exploited.

    +Richard Meggitt

  • Increase in Motor Insurance Premiums – The Truth

    There has much comment in the media about the significant increase in motor insurance premiums over the last year. The insurance industry would have you believe this has been caused by Solicitors and fraudulent claims. The reality is quite different.

    What the insurance industry fails to mention is that they are the biggest seller of claims and the largest receiver of referral fees, it being estimated that they collectively took over four billion pounds from Solicitors last year alone. They also keep quiet about excessive hire and repair charges in the event of an accident. At ASD we do not act for claims management companies or insurers. We are independent and pay referral fees to our former clients not to companies who wish to sell to the highest bidder.

     

    +Richard Meggitt