![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:28:47 +0100, Charles Mitchell
wrote:
Following the Law Commission's Report
on the subject (take a bow, Prof Burrows) the English Department of
Health has announced a proposal to extend the NHS costs recovery regime
to include recovery of hospital and ambulance costs in all cases of
personal injury compensation, and has issued a consultation document
inviting views on this proposal: Department of Health, The Recovery
of National Health Service Costs in Cases involving Personal Injury
Compensation: A Consultation (2002), available online at http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhscosts/recoverycosts.pdf
Thanks to Charles for bringing our attention to this.
It is interesting for the blatant appeal - in a law reform
proposal! - to a principle of "avoiding unjust enrichment" as justifying
the extended liability (para 4.6). It is nice to see the admission that
the "principle" is one for re-shaping the law, rather than merely for
re-stating it. (Though we could have wished that the admission had come
a little earlier.) It is no longer obvious today, as it was to one writer
last century, that " 'unjust' can never be made to draw on an unknowable
justice in the sky". However, as Buxton LJ has already pointed out, this
is a position of some logical difficulty - for if the supposed principle
really extends this far, why is it necessary to REFORM the law to recognise
it? (See Law Com 262 para 3.22 note 27.)
As to the merits of the proposal, I suppose it is really
a question of whether the end (to get more money for the NHS) justify
the means (making the customers of dangerous employers pay more). Stated
in practical terms, the proposal is to charge the insurers of tortfeasors
for NHS costs occasioned by the tort. The insurers will, of course, pass
this on to their clients (overwhelmingly private employers). The private
employers will, of course, pass it on to their customers. But will the
customers notice? Para 4.16 notes that while the proposal means an increase
of about 7% in insurance premiums, in fact those same premiums are about
to go through the roof for quite different reasons. So, nudge nudge wink
wink, if the government enacts this proposal very quickly, they will be
able to extract the contemplated £120m from the public without anyone
noticing. If anyone questions why premiums have gone up, it is calculated
that this contribution will seem too small to mention.
Whether this is regarded as astute financial planning,
or as a cynical way of raising the public burden on the taxpayer without
having to admit what they are up to, may simply be a matter of taste.
Steve Hedley
============================================= ansaphone : +44 1223 334931 Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |