The Federal Government’s review into the law of negligence delivered its first report yesterday. The insurance industry likes it and the lawyers don’t. The report from a panel chaired by NSW Supreme Court Justice David Ipp recommends a revamp of negligence laws to impose a three-year limit on bringing claims and advocates greater personal responsibility for engaging in risky activities.

The panel was set up as one of the measures agreed by the May ministerial meeting on public liability insurance. It was briefed to inquire into the law of negligence and develop a series of proposals on reforming the law.

The report recommends a number of reforms of the law of negligence, one of the most controversial being that doctors would be exempt from negligence claims if their conduct is supported by the “widely held opinion” of their colleagues. That’s one the lawyers are very uncomfortable with.

Other measures include a national response embodied in a single statute (currently there are a number of areas individuals can sue under when bringing negligence claims) and changing the law so that individuals taking part in risky activities are unable to sue.

The panel’s second report, due on September 30, will make further recommendations on limiting liability and the amount of awards for damages, as well as evaluating proposals to allow self-assumption of risk to override the common law.

Federal Assistant Treasurer Helen Coonan said the proposals “are not about taking away people’s rights or reducing consumer protection”.

She said the recommendations have the potential to “greatly impact” on the areas of medical negligence, public liability and professional indemnity insurance. The recommendations are likely to be discussed with state and territory governments at the next ministerial meeting on September 27.

Law Council President Tony Abbott said the idea of the medical profession judging their peers cuts across the power of the courts. “Courts assess what is the standard of care which ought to be shown by a reasonable doctor, lawyer or accountant or other profession based on evidence from experts in the field,” he told ABC news yesterday.

Trouble is, the plaintiff lawyers have minimised their ability to force a reconsideration of the recommendations by engaging in passionate and occasionally unhinged attacks on the insurance industry that put their own credibility in doubt. And certainly the insurers were finding it hard not to look smug yesterday, with ICA Executive Director Alan Mason hailing it all as “a vote for commonsense”.

 “The community has seen some awards recently which demonstrate how far the balance has gone in favour of the individual at the cost of the majority,” Mr Mason said yesterday. “We need to bring the balance back in favour of the community.”

ICA also supported the recommendation that “in order for law reform to be effective, reforms to personal injury law must provide a uniform scheme regardless of the legal category (tort, contract, equity, under statute or otherwise) under which a claim is brought”.

“We also welcome the review’s further comments on amendments to the Trade Practices Act and the proposed limitation periods for bringing a claim,” Mr Mason said.