Personal legal expenses insurance could help you and your family with a number of legal issues, depending on what cover you have.
This site can help you learn about legal expenses insurance, how to get it, and how to use it if you have it.
See what we offer to our people
Legal expenses insurance can help you with a number of legal issues affecting your business.
News and analysis from our experts
Many brokers and law firms have chosen to partner with DAS.
Here you can find out why our partners choose us, and how you can join them.
We've now made it even easier for customers to make a claim. Here you can find out how.
This article is part of issue #3 of our ATE newsletter, EvaluATE.
With the year gradually drawing to a close and a new year almost upon us, I have reflected upon some interesting and significant cases and developments during 2023, and considered some of those to look out for in 2024 in the road traffic and personal injury arena.
In Denzil v Mohammad , the difference between dishonesty and dishonesty that is fundamental was explored.
In his written and oral evidence, not elsewhere, the claimant asserted that he also suffered a head injury in a road traffic accident. However, injury was not proven and the claimant was found to have been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the primary claim, namely the head injury.
The appellant (claimant) contended there was nothing, or not enough, to prove any dishonesty was fundamental. Mr Justice Freedman concluded there was no scope to find that such a minor and very short-lived injury, not forming part of the pleaded claim, but referred to in written and oral evidence, could be properly characterised or understood as being fundamental or going to the root of the claim.
The matter of Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP Zoo  considered the question of whether grounds of illegality and causation are independent of each other.
The claimant’s lack of MOT certificate and evidence of any intention to obtain one meant their credit hire charges claim failed for lack of causation (the first instance judge having rejected the defendant’s illegality defence).
The appellant’s (claimant’s) counsel asserted in his skeleton, “… the judge’s alternative ‘causation’ analysis was just ex turpi causa wearing a different dress”. However, Mr Justice Martin Spencer concluded that the judge had been correct, and that what was really being considered were two different forms of illegality.
In Blair v Jaber , Recorder Jack, whilst assessing PSLA, noted that:
Recorder Jack considered that if there is a change in circumstance since publication – here, a very substantial drop in money since April 2022 – that is a matter to factor in when assessing damages. Here, the JCG was increased by approximately 12%.
I note that the current JCG introduction makes clear though that its figures are based on prices as at September 2021 – a hard copy of the JCG was not available to the Court. Furthermore, whilst this County Court case has attracted a lot of attention, it is also of note that the JCG introduction states that its figures should be increased by the appropriate index for inflation between editions.
Jenkinson v Hertfordshire County Council  addresses medical treatment and the chain of causation.
The claimant suffered a fracture to his right ankle, and the defendant’s orthopaedic expert opined subsequent surgery was performed negligently. The defendant issued an application to amend their Defence, but it was refused
DJ Vernon considered there was an established rule of law that medical treatment of an injury caused by a defendant’s tort cannot break the chain of causation unless it is such grossly negligent treatment as to be a completely inappropriate response to the injury (the Specific Rule) and that there was no real prospect of the defendant establishing such negligence.
However, Mr Justice Baker concluded the Specific Rule does not exist as a principle of law. Without such constraint, Mr Justice Baker’s judgment was that there was a real prospect on the basis of that expert’s opinion, if accepted at trial, of a finding that the claimant’s initial injury was so badly mistreated that the defendant ought not, in fairness, be considered responsible for the consequences of that mistreatment.
Moreover, in any event, if the Specific Rule does exist as a rule of law, Mr Justice Baker found himself in disagreement with DJ Vernon over whether the defendant had raised a real prospect of success at trial.
In addition, 2023 saw amendments to CPR 44.14 (Effect of Qualified One-way Costs Shifting) and the expansion of the fixed recoverable costs regime to encompass significantly more civil claims. 2024 will also see an expansion of fixed costs in respect of clinical negligence claims.
Towards the start of the new year the Supreme Court is expected to hear the appeal of Hassam & Anor v Rabot & Anor . Moreover, by July there will be the next review of the Personal Injury Discount Rate (dual/multiple). Watch this space…
This article was written for the DAS ATE newsletter, EvaluATE. The newsletter is our regular platform for providing insights to those in the PI and CN industries; you can read the rest of issue 3 at the link below. Don't forget to join our webinar on Wednesday 13th December to hear more from our contributors about the topics raised in this issue.
Read Issue #3 of EvaluATE
Join our webinar
Nathan Holt, Head of ATE & BTE Underwriting at DAS, provides his unique view on an everchanging legal landscape and ATE’s role in providing access to justice.
Mediation and dispute resolution are on the rise, and are increasingly being preferred over court. Paul Balen, Director at Trust Mediation and Trust Arbitration, tells us more.
Nick McDonnell, Director at Kain Knight, looks at the Jackson reforms and what work remains to be done.
Fixed Recoverable Costs: is Jackson “finished”?
Empowering smaller legal practices: The success of the Optimise scheme
Henrietta Hughes, Barrister at 3PB, looks back at developments in the road traffic and personal injury arena.
The Optimise scheme, launched by DAS and Maxima, has supported over 100 clients over the past two years, transforming the landscape for clinical negligence and personal injury cases.
Lisa O’Dwyer from Action against Medical Accidents looks at how the LDFRC process will affect Clinical Negligence claims.
William Ellerton, Partner at DAS Law, gives his predictions for how the new FRC could play out.
Matthew Olner, solicitor at Nelsons, talks about how the QOCS changes have affected his law firm.
In this article, Rebecca Squires and Jane Marigold from DAS give their perspective on the QOCS changes.
The full impact of the QOCS changes will be played out in years rather than months. Here, Henry King from 12 King’s Bench addresses what might be done about it from a claimant perspective.
Change has long been brewing in relation to the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) regime.
Carol Parsons, Head of ATE at DAS, talks about ATE and its numerous strengths ahead of BIBA 2023.
Since the introduction of QOCS and the subsequent change to ATE premiums being payable by the client, solicitors have faced some challenges when the client is a minor.