DMFD186 Personal Injury Claims 2023-24

1.1 Report LFC-0770y to the London Fire Commissioner (LFC) explains that the majority of personal injury (PI) claims against the LFC (or indeed the settlement of any other litigation) are less than £150,000 and are settled under the delegation provided in the LFC Scheme of Delegation. In respect of claims, the provision is for the settlement of any claim, including claims for costs, by or against the LFC, of up to £150,000 by the LFC’s General Counsel on behalf of the LFC. Decisions to settle over £150,000 are a matter for the LFC and, under the terms of  the current Mayoral Direction of 2018, the LFC is required to seek the prior approval of the Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience (the Deputy Mayor) before “[a] commitment to expenditure (capital or revenue) of £150,000 or above as identified in accordance with normal accounting practices…”. Cases are settled based on advice provided by specialist counsel – which relies on well-established guidelines on damages and previous reported legal cases that set precedents and principles – and in relation to legal costs, on the advice of a costs draftsperson experienced in such matters.

1.2 The procedure for dealing with high-value claims is not straightforward, especially if liability and/or causation are in dispute. The final value of these claims is often only fully quantified as the parties progress through the litigation process. An inability to negotiate settlement of these high-value claims at short notice creates the risk of being penalised in terms of additional costs and, reputationally, being perceived as delaying settlement.

1.3 The main claim types likely to exceed the amount that triggers the need for the Deputy Mayor’s prior approval, and exceeding the current LFC delegation to General Counsel, are:

i. mesothelioma

ii. other asbestos-related claims (asbestosis, lung cancer)

iii. cancer-related claims

iv. psychiatric injuries (usually PTSD)

v. any claim that results in medical retirement.

1.4 DMFD156 authorised the LFC to commit expenditure in respect of PI cases in 2022-23. GLA officers and the LFC consider this arrangement to have been effective since being introduced for the current financial year. This approach had enabled the LFC to respond to strict deadlines for committing expenditure without risking delay, while providing ongoing transparency on expenditure for the Deputy Mayor.

2.1 On the basis of details of the cases anticipated in 2023-24; the expert external legal and other advice sought on quantum and costs; the difficulties in anticipating exact figures, in terms of settlement and costs, within the litigation process; and the financial benefits of achieving early settlements, it is proposed that, subject to the Deputy Mayor authorising the expenditure, the LFC authorise General Counsel to settle claims up to the value set out in part two, on the terms set out in the recommendation.

2.2 The budgetary implication of the number and costs of cases received is clearly recognised. Accordingly, it is proposed that this arrangement remains subject to reporting mechanisms to the Deputy Mayor. This includes notifying the Deputy Mayor of cases where expenditure may exceed £150,000; and notifying the Deputy Mayor of confirmed costs when such cases are settled. The Deputy Mayor will also receive an update, at the end of 2023-24, on expenditure incurred on PI claims under this authority.

2.3 The authority sought is limited to 2023-24. Its use and effectiveness would be reviewed prior to any proposal to extend the authority for future years.

3.1 The LFC and the Deputy Mayor are required to have due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) when taking decisions. This in broad terms involves understanding the potential impact of policy and decisions on different people, taking this into account and then evidencing how decisions were reached.

3.2 It is important to note that consideration of the Public Sector Equality Duty is not a one-off task. The duty must be fulfilled before taking a decision, at the time of taking a decision, and after the decision has been taken.

3.3 The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership (but only in respect of the requirements to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination), race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality), religion or belief (including lack of belief), sex, and sexual orientation.

3.4 The Public Sector Equality Duty requires decision-takers in the exercise of all their functions, to have due regard to the need to:

i. eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other prohibited conduct

ii. advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

iii. foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

3.5 Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to:

i. remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic where those disadvantages are connected to that characteristic

ii. take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it

iii. encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

3.6 The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities.

3.7 Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard to the need to:

i. tackle prejudice

ii. promote understanding.

​​​​​​​3.8 There are no specific equality implications arising from this report.

Workforce comments

4.1 This report concerns individual issues. Accordingly, no staff-side consultations have been undertaken.

Conflicts of interest

4.2 There are no conflicts of interest to declare from those involved in the drafting or clearance of this decision.​​​​​​​

5.1 The report sets out a recommendation that the Deputy Mayor gives authority to the LFC to commit expenditure to settle all PI claims up to a maximum specified amount as contained in part 2 of this report. It is envisaged that these costs will be contained within existing base budget. 

5.2 The 2023-24 LFC budget submission includes an amount contained in part 2 of this report as base funding. This budget is based on previous year’s spend and future anticipated expenditure. It is currently estimated it will be sufficient to meet the costs arising in 2023-24. However, in unexpected circumstances, such as a large number of claims or a significant settlement, there is also an earmarked reserve specifically for these types of events.

5.3 There are no direct financial implications for the GLA.

6.1 Under section 9 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the LFC is established as a corporation sole with the Mayor appointing the occupant of that office. Under section 327D of the GLA Act 1999, as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the Mayor may issue to the LFC specific or general directions as to the manner in which the holder of that office is to exercise his or her functions.

6.2 By direction dated 1 April 2018, the Mayor set out those matters for which the LFC would require the prior approval of either the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor. Paragraph (b) of Part 2 of that direction requires the LFC to seek the prior approval of the Deputy Mayor before “[a] commitment to expenditure (capital or revenue) of £150,000 or above as identified in accordance with normal accounting practices…”.

6.3 The proposals in this report seek authority for the LFC to settle PI claims (or in the alternative a specific PI claim) in excess of £150,000; accordingly, this falls within those matters set out in the 2018 Directions and therefore requires prior approval of the Deputy Mayor.

6.4 These comments have been adopted from those provided by the LFC’s General Counsel Department in report LFC-0770 to the LFC.

Appendix 1 – Report LFC-0770y Personal Injury Claims 2023-24