APIL’s silver jubilee

Back in 1990, a small group of claimant lawyers, who were admittedly in competition with each other, decided that it was time to share knowledge for the benefit of their clients. This had never happened before, and so APIL came to be. APIL’s members are still in competition with each other, yet breaking down the barriers between claimant lawyers has been one of APIL’s biggest challenges and biggest successes.

APIL on the frontline 

APRIL has been involved in almost every battle, if not all, on behalf of injured people for 25 years and is - the vast majority of the time - at the table when change is afoot. As former president Amanda Stevens said earlier this year:

It would now be inconceivable for APIL not to be consulted on any change to the [personal injury] landscape. That position has been earned through many years of well thought-out argument.

The association exists to provide injured people with a voice, and has been involved in many skirmishes. Some of these have created positive change from which injured people and their families benefit today. One such example is APIL’s influence through its campaign on ‘corporate killing’ , which led into the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 along with the involvement of numerous other organisations. Compromises were made, and in the main not everything played for was won, as is usually the case. APIL worked on the Courts Act 2003, which allowed courts to impose periodical payments, as it passed through the House of Lords; previously, defendants had to agree, which they rarely did. And after years and years of campaigning and consultation, the government finally introduced a fund of last resort for mesothelioma claims, for those who cannot find their former employers’ insurers. This particular mission is not yet over, as APIL continues to call for extension of the scheme to help victims of other workplace diseases who cannot trace their former employers’ insurers. This campaign is just one example of many which, in some form or another, are still ongoing. A revised Rehabilitation Code has been published, with complementary guidance for case managers and those who commission them.

Examples of the first of many

One of APIL’s first campaigns related to bereavement damages, a topic still very high on the agenda this year and beyond. Since the association formed, bereavement damages have increased three times (in England and Wales) and APIL has been instrumental each time. In 2007, the then government identified a need for a regular increase in bereavement damages and committed to an increase every three years. This did not happen, and after a couple of one-off increases in 2008 and 2013, currently grieving relatives receive £12,980. Today, the association still campaigns for ‘fairness for families’ and a less prescriptive approach to who is eligible for bereavement damages in England and Wales, as well as an increased level of compensation. This reflects the Scottish system, which is much fairer. Also, contrast this to the position in Spain, Italy, Greece and Poland, for example, where a much wider class of relatives are entitled to claim damages following a fatal accident, and where the awards tend to be much higher.

In another early but ongoing fight, the association has pressed for a change in the discount rate since as long ago as 1992. Back then, a discount rate of 4% or 5% was applied routinely when the net return on investments was only around 2%. In 2010, APIL pushed the then Lord Chancellor and secretary of state for justice Kenneth Clarke QC for a review of the discount rate as he should under the provisions of the Damages Act 1996. He did not, and so APIL issued judicial review proceedings. Although the judicial review failed, it triggered two consultations which will hopefully lead to a review in the future. It is slow progress, but a fight - it is hoped - that will have been worth having.

Measured and tenacious under attack

Onslaughts on lawyers’ costs and access to justice have, to many practitioners, felt relentless in recent years, and APIL has never backed down in doing what it can to give injured people a voice and to protect their rights. The respect the organisation has cultivated for its measured approach has meant that there has been representation and involvement through reforms from the abolition of legal aid to the recent introduction of MedCo. Rather than reject discussions about undesirable change completely, by getting involved APIL was able to exert influence. In proactive campaigns, where the association wants to see reform, let it never be said that it is not tenacious. Some campaigns, such as the aforementioned crusade for help for mesothelioma victims, have lasted years before reaching any sort of outcome.

Reactively, the association has played a part in batting away three threats of an increase in the small claims court limit, and APIL suspects that the insurance industry will have another crack at the whip at some point. The first of these happened in 2005, and it took until 2007 for the consultation to reach a conclusion. When it finally did conclude, the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Falconer, stunned delegates at APIL’s annual conference when he announced unexpectedly that the small claims limit for personal injury cases would remain unchanged. Again, during the 2009 consultation on Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals for civil litigation costs, a proposal to increase the small claims limit was discussed, and yet again in 2013. As APIL’s executive committee and staff look ahead to the relatively near future, there is some anticipation of a further attempt on the small claims limit, and the association will of course be there for the debate.

Looking to the future

A round-up of APIL’s history and achievements would not be complete without mention of the launch of the association’s accreditation schemes. Along the way, APIL has established initiatives to raise standards for the public and the profession. Just before the turn of the millennium, a combination of training courses and accreditation was launched, then called the College of Personal Injury Law. The scheme has flourished since it began in September 1999, and now offers accreditation to individuals, firms and chambers, and individuals who have proven their expertise in personal injury specialisms, including brain injury and occupational disease.

Accreditation provides a quality mark of competence and specialist expertise for solicitors and barristers dealing with personal injury claims. The quality mark helps the consumer to recognise expertise and specialisms within the profession. Accredited members prove their worth through inspections and attendance at APIL training events. The association runs around 240 such events each year, including 100 face-to-face sessions, webinars, in-house training, regional and special interest group meetings and three residential conferences, including the annual conference and annual general meeting in the spring, at which the incoming president takes the helm.

APIL’s membership provides strength in its number, and a place for personal injury practitioners to share knowledge and fight for a better deal for their clients. When facing an onslaught of reforms - from the demise of legal aid to the recent hike in court fees - practitioners are stronger together. The association brings reassurance that, even if you are the sole personal injury practitioner in a huge firm, you have access to thousands of others in the same boat to whom you can speak either through APIL’s forums or at events. But, most importantly, APIL has never faltered in its focus and commitment to injured people for a quarter of a century.

What the personal injury landscape will look like in another 25 years, and what form and role APIL will take, remains to be seen. Maybe the association’s current president, Jonathan Wheeler, will see his dream come true as he explained in his inaugural speech at the annual conference in April. He wants APIL’s members to no longer be working in personal injury and the staff in Nottingham to be redeployed elsewhere, but not because access to justice has been eroded: ‘Think about it,’ he said, ‘we wouldn’t be needed because no one would ever be harmed as a result of the carelessness, recklessness or downright criminality of another. That, ladies and gentlemen, is my idea of Utopia.’

Where Jonathan’s dream falls down is that despite the fact that preventing needless injury is a laudable aim which APIL works towards, it is only a pipe-dream : and that is why we need APIL.

• For more information about APIL visit www.apil.org.uk