In personal injury claims, it is not uncommon for cases to narrow as they progress. Liability may be resolved early, and general damages agreed, leaving only discrete areas of dispute. Increasingly, treatment costs are one such area, particularly where defendants rely on “intervention rates” (early submission of preferable rates, to deter the instruction of other providers at a higher rate).
We recently concluded a matter which provides a clear illustration of how these disputes can be managed more effectively.
In this case, the claimant had completed a course of treatment supported by a quotation. This was provided to the defendant at an early stage, ahead of treatment, alongside multiple opportunities to either agree to the cost of treatment or to put forward their own treatment provider. Despite this, no response was received. We instructed a treatment provider at the amount quoted. The matter progressed, and while general damages were eventually agreed upon, treatment costs were later disputed.
At that stage, the traditional route would have been to issue proceedings and await a court hearing. Given current court delays, this can often result in many months of further uncertainty, with the claimant unable to bring the matter to a full conclusion or access final damages.
Instead, arbitration was pursued.
Once both parties agreed on the contents of the arbitration pack, the matter was referred for determination. A decision was returned within 24 hours.
The contrast with a court timetable is significant. What could otherwise have taken several months was resolved in a matter of days. For the claimant, this meant closure and the ability to receive damages in full without further delay.
From a claims handling perspective, there are several key takeaways.
First, early and transparent engagement on treatment is important. Where a clear quotation is provided, supported by clinical need, there is a genuine opportunity for defendants (and claimants) to engage constructively. Failure to do so weakens later attempts to rely on reduced (or higher) rates.
Second, arbitration provides a proportionate and effective route for resolving disputes. It is particularly well suited to cases where the issues are narrow, the evidence is complete, and the cost of litigation would be disproportionate to the sums in dispute.
Finally, from a client care perspective, the benefits are clear. Avoiding unnecessary delay aligns with both good practice and regulatory expectations, ensuring that claims are progressed efficiently and with the client’s best interests in mind.
This was our first case progressed in this way in partnership with Nuva Law, and it demonstrated the clear value arbitration can offer as part of our wider claims strategy.