Understanding the differences between these two paths is crucial for survivors who are weighing their options for justice and compensation, and firms like Newcastle’s Law Office Of Conrad Curry see many survivors confused about which pathway to take . While both provide avenues for financial relief, they do so in very different ways.
|
Aspect |
Common Law Claim |
Redress Scheme |
|
Compensation |
Uncapped, potentially higher compensation |
Capped at $150,000 |
|
Proof Requirement |
Requires proving negligence or liability |
Less burden of proof; no need to prove negligence |
|
Process Length |
Can take years, involves court proceedings |
Typically quicker, less formal legal process |
|
Emotional Toll |
More emotionally demanding, can involve cross-examination |
Less emotionally taxing, streamlined application |
|
Support Services |
No built-in support, but compensation may cover costs |
Includes access to counselling and support services |
|
Outcome Finality |
Can lead to institutional reform and higher compensation |
Final once accepted; no further legal claims |
Each option has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Survivors must consider their own emotional capacity, financial goals, and the level of accountability they wish to see when choosing between a common law claim and the Redress Scheme.
Which Path Is Right for You?
Choosing between a common law claim and the Redress Scheme may not be easy, and every survivor’s situation is unique. While some may prefer the potential for higher compensation through common law, others may prioritise a quicker, less confrontational resolution offered by the Redress Scheme.
Factors to consider include:
- Financial needs: If a survivor is in need of immediate financial assistance, the Redress Scheme may offer a faster outcome, though may have a lower maximum payout – depending on the circumstances.
- Emotional readiness: Pursuing a common law claim can be emotionally draining due to the higher burden of proof, the possibility of cross-examination, and the time involved. If a survivor is not ready for the emotional toll, the Redress Scheme may be a less stressful option.
- Desire for accountability: Survivors who want to hold institutions accountable for their failings might prefer a common law claim, which can sometimes lead to broader reforms within institutions.
- Finality: Survivors should be aware that once they accept a redress payment, they cannot pursue further legal claims, whereas common law claims allow for more flexibility in seeking further legal recourse if necessary.
Ultimately, making the best decision requires a balance of practical and emotional considerations. Survivors are encouraged to seek legal advice to fully understand their rights and the potential consequences of each option.
The Importance of Legal Assistance
Navigating the legal system in cases of institutional abuse can be daunting. Survivors often face challenges that go beyond just legal complexities—emotional trauma, psychological scars, and a lack of trust in institutions can make the process even more overwhelming. Having a legal professional who is experienced in institutional abuse cases can make all the difference. They not only provide expertise in the legal process but also offer a compassionate understanding of what survivors have been through.
A lawyer can help:
- Assess the evidence: They can advise on the strength of the case, the likelihood of success in a common law claim, and the potential compensation that could be awarded.
- Navigate the Redress Scheme: If the Redress Scheme seems like a better option, a lawyer can guide survivors through the application process, ensuring all necessary documentation is provided and the best possible outcome is achieved.
- Provide emotional support: A legal professional who is sensitive to the unique challenges of institutional abuse cases can act as both an advocate and a source of emotional support.
Conclusion
Deciding between a common law claim and the Redress Scheme is a deeply personal choice, influenced by a survivor’s unique circumstances, needs, and goals. While common law claims offer the potential for greater financial compensation and accountability, the Redress Scheme provides a faster and less burdensome process. Survivors should take the time to explore both options and seek expert legal advice to make the best decision for their situation.
At Conrad Curry – Institutional Abuse Lawyers, the team is committed to providing compassionate, expert legal guidance for survivors, helping them understand their rights, and supporting them through whichever path they choose in their pursuit of justice.
