Posted By Graham Watson I was having a discussion recently about “ambulance chasers”, and the “no win no fee” system. Some were saying that this system causes many more claims than was the case before this system, and that some of them (many of them) are frivolous. It was quite an interesting exchange but one point was of particular note. I was under the impression that claims had gone down. I’m sure I’ve seen this statement on this site. One of the other contributors mentioned that this was because when the law first changed there was an increase in claims, but with the maturation of the system the number of claims had fallen. This was the source of the data suggesting a reduction in the rate of claims. Does anyone here have any information on this? Have the number of claims fallen since the “no win no fee” change? Or was there an increase just after the change in the law, and a subsequent fall? Or has there been a steady, decrease in claims over the years as a general trend? Regards Graham

Posted By Ian Blenkharn Tony, one aspect of your proud claim gives me great cause for concern: "have won four from four this year in my defence of " alleged accidents" and the truth is that one guy did actually have a clear cut case, but gave up the fight when he realised how much effort we were putting into our defence" If you are saying that you deliberately put insurmountable barriers in the way of a fully justified claim, even more so if you did that when a case had been formalised as legal proceedings, then you are likely to get your collar felt. Making it difficult is one thing, and we all know of the gameplay that forms part of the first stage in most claims, but your comments hint at something far more malicious than that. I hope I am wrong, but I am left with a very uncomfortable feeling about your approach.

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy Ian perhaps I should have made it clearer, but the guy had a case in that he did actually suffer an injury, a pretty severe one too, while at work. We argued that he was taking part in a work activity for which he had clearly been instructed not to. He argued that he was not sure of the boundaries and therefore he "crossed over" from one area into another and, although he was instructed to deliver to site he was not expected to get involved in the lifting operation which went pear shaped and resulted in his injury. Our defence centred on his clear instruction(both signed and dated) and his inability to carry out the operation safely. In my oppinion he did have a fair case, although certainly we would always contest it if we thought we had done ATWRP.We were prepared to lose but he but packed it in, presumably on advice from his solicitor. Another one to the company but a correct one im sure.