IBEC describes lawyers' actions as 'self-serving'

In its ongoing row with the Law Society over the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), the business and employer body, IBEC…

In its ongoing row with the Law Society over the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), the business and employer body, IBEC, has denounced the increase in the lodging of personal injuries cases in court as "self-serving" on the part of the legal profession.

The Law Society has responded that it is not surprising that those who have the choice prior to June 1st will choose the courts, as, unlike PIAB, they are guaranteed to be fair to both sides.

From June 1st employer liability cases must first go to PIAB. If liability is contested, they will then be released to go to the courts. Otherwise, PIAB will go on to assess the claim on the basis of documents furnished by the claimant. There will be no oral hearings and no lawyers involved on either side.

The Law Society has opposed the setting up of PIAB on its current basis on a number of grounds. In particular, it has claimed that claimants will be disadvantaged by the fact that they will be obliged to outline their claim for compensation and submit to assessment, with no guarantee that the case will not end up in court with the respondent having advance knowledge of the claimant's case.

READ MORE

IBEC stated yesterday that the recent dramatic increase in the number of personal injury cases lodged for High Court hearing (up from 900 in May 2003 to 1,786 so far in May 2004) demonstrated the negative reaction of a number of lawyers to the establishment of the PIAB. IBEC believes this is self-serving and not in the interests of genuinely injured people or the party against whom they are entitled to claim compensation.

Mr Tony Briscoe, assistant director of IBEC, stated that the conclusions to be drawn from this response was that it was to avoid the PIAB process and to enable the legal profession to secure additional legal fees.

He also pointed out that only about 10 per cent of cases ever reach court hearing and claimed that 30 per cent of employer liability cases were settled on the steps of the court.

IBEC insisted that a claimant has nothing to lose from a PIAB assessment. Under the litigation route there would be a lengthy delay and significant legal costs.

IBEC will encourage its members to make efforts to settle genuine claims from employees and, where this is not possible, will recommend that they support their assessment by the PIAB, Mr Briscoe said.

The director general of the Law Society, Mr Ken Murphy said: "The victims of workplace accidents will no doubt be touched by the concern for their interests being expressed by the representative body of their negligent employers. However, if they look at the facts more objectively they are almost certain to conclude that the courts are more likely to provide fair compensation than PIAB. "The courts system is guaranteed to be fair to both sides. In contrast, in subtle but significant ways the PIAB is designed to favour the defence interest..."