Damages Claims Portal (DCP)

Overview:

The Damages Claims Portal (“DCP”) is an online portal for bringing damages claims (a

compensation claim where judgment is to be determined) in the county court.

The DCP enables a county court claim (where the claim has 1 claimant against 1

defendant, 2 claimants against 1 defendant or 1 claimant against two defendants) to be

filed with the court online 24/7. The parties to the claim can be an individual, a

company, an organisation or a sole trader. Statements of case can be uploaded to the system.

The defendant is notified of the claim through the system – there is no need

to separately serve the defendant with paper/electronic copies of the claim form or other

documents. The defendant can, in turn, upload a defence to the system.

There is no limit of the value of claims that can be issued in the DCP. Subsequent releases will

expand the ambit of the DCP, ultimately providing an end-to-end service from pre-action to

enforcement.

The rules governing the DCP are set out in Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction

51ZB. PRACTICE DIRECTION 51ZB – THE DAMAGES CLAIMS PILOT (justice.gov.uk)”

Service by E mail and Farewell to Fax ?

Solicitors will be barred from ‘unreasonably’ refusing to accept service by email under proposals issued for consultation by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.

The reform is part of a wide-ranging project on modernisation of service, on which the CCRC is seeking further ideas.

Solicitors and judges have said in recent years that the rules are too cumbersome and should be adapted to modern communication methods. Email is now a very common way for litigants to communicate both before and after the commencement of proceedings, the consultation notes. The rules permit electronic service on a party or their solicitors, but unless an order for alternative service is obtained under CPR 6.15 the consent of the party being served is required.

In some cases, parties that may previously have communicated by email have attempted electronic service only to find after the expiry of the limitation period that the agreement of the party being served was required. 'More commonly,' it adds, 'parties find themselves put to additional expense and delay by parties or their solicitors unreasonably refusing to accept electronic service even though they may have been communicating in that manner for some time.'

The CPRC considered blanket permission where there has been electronic communication pre-action, but noted that this is not straightforward. The committee said: ‘Although able to communicate electronically, some unrepresented parties may only have limited digital access and be unable to download large documents or access sites which host them.

'Moreover, although legal representatives may not encounter the same technical issues, their role may be limited to initial pre-action advice and correspondence. Making those representatives responsible for the transmission of proceedings to former clients may be burdensome and a particular disincentive for those providing pro bono legal assistance in contentious matters.'

The CCRC’s proposed rule change would require legal representatives who have confirmed they are authorised to accept service on their client’s behalf to accept electronic service without the need for further confirmation of their consent.

A second rule change would remove reference in the rules to service by fax as the primary method of electronic communication, which the CCRC now considers ‘outdated’.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) and the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) have issued guidelines to 38,000 teachers in the UK to address the rise in AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The guidelines highlight that young people may not realise the illegality of creating such content.The IWF reported a 380% increase in AI-generated CSAM reports in 2024 compared to 2023.  A survey revealed that over a quarter of teachers were unaware that AI-generated CSAM is illegal. 

Costs

Court restores firm's 50% damages deduction

A personal injury firm was entitled to deduct 50% from its client’s damages through its success fee and also an after-the-event insurance premium, the county court has ruled on appeal.

His Honour Judge Monty KC granted an appeal by Express Solicitors of a decision by Deputy District Judge Walton allowing the firm a success fee of just £225 – half of that requested – and disallowing £675 claimed for an after the event insurance premium. In Duffield v VW Morrison Supermarkets Ltd the judge said the county court's decision was wrong and that the firm was entitled to deduct the full amount claimed. There was no doubt that the ATE insurance was reasonably entered into, he said.

The ruling is the court’s latest attempt to clarify the position with regards to client damage deductions, and will be greeted with relief by PI firms.

Express had represented a five-year-old boy through his mother acting as litigation friend after he was injured in a supermarket accident. The case settled for £2,250 and came before the court for approval. The mother confirmed she had made an informed decision to pursue the litigation and that she understood how the CFA operated and that an ATE policy would be taken out to guard against the risks of adverse costs. The funding arrangement limited deductions to no more than 50% of the damages and £1,125 was sought.

The county court judge said his focus was on the ‘broader picture’ and he opted to limit the success fee to 10% of the agreed damages. He further said it was difficult to see how it was reasonable to incur a premium for a costs-based insurance policy. He described the damages as having been 'eaten up' by disproportionate deductions.

On appeal, Monty said the judge’s approach to the calculation of the success fee was wrong, as he had equated it with the 10% uplift applied to damages in personal injury cases as established in Simmons.

Regarding the insurance premium, he said it ‘makes no sense’ to have allowed a success fee and refused to allow the deduction of the ATE. Monty added: ‘The judge seems to have started from the proposition that the total deductions sought were too high, and then fashioned a way of reducing them. That with respect was the wrong approach.’

Forbes Comment:

The Court has clarified that it was legally appropriate for Express to make these deductions, but was it fair and reasonable? The injured infant claimant is left with £1125 out of the £2250 awarded, that being the sum considered appropriate for approval. One can understand why the DDJ considered the overall deductions went too far and sought to limit the effect on the claimant.

 A legal victory for Express solicitors, but I query is it good publicity for them? You be the judge.