Why every child and the mentally incapacitated hit and run victim needs independent legal representation from the outset
- That these individuals have independent legal advice and representation from the outset of the claim and sufficient funding to ensure that their interests are adequately protected in the more complicated claims.
- That in all but the simplest of cases, the arbitrator (under the proposed settlement approval scheme) should insist on a written opinion from the victim's barrister or solicitor which should consider: (a) the adequacy of the evidence obtained by the MIB; (b) the suitability of the proposed compromise or settlement, as well as (c) any other relevant matters such as the form the proposed award should take (e.g. lump sum / periodical payments order).
Worst of both worlds
A cautionary tale
Not long ago, this type of cloak and dagger tactic was nothing out of the ordinary for the normal cut and thrust of a contested civil claim but in recent years the courts have imposed rigorous sanctions on those who attempt ambuscades of this kind. Unfortunately, neither the Civil Procedure Rules nor the court’s writ extend to the Untraced Drivers Scheme. Behaviour that might be tolerable where both parties are legally represented and where the court has benefit of hearing both sides of the case, is completely unacceptable when perpetrated by a quasi judicial / inquisitional body.