There is an answer to the problem that the noble and learned Lord raises. It might have implications for the workload of the judiciary but I think that could be handled. We should get away from the idea that a judge should assess damages in appropriate cases only at one stage. There is no reason why you cannot have a system where the matter can be restored to a judge in a case of differences of opinion to take into account succeeding circumstances. If the power existed, the courts would find that in the majority of cases, litigants—properly advised, as they are in these big cases—would come back only when there was a real difficulty between the insurer in practice and the claimant. In that way, matters could be reviewed to reflect any differing circumstances. It was not a one-off assessment that I was advocating but the ability to change the assessment. That would apply to PPOs as it would to any other laws.
Civil Liability Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Woolf
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 May 2018.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Civil Liability Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
791 c619 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-06-12 15:30:49 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-05-15/18051558000195
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-05-15/18051558000195
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-05-15/18051558000195