CFAs

Three cheers for the Access to Justice Action Group (AJAG) and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL). Words you probably didn’t expect to hear on the Legal Costs Blog. They have been loudly trumpeting their “independent research” into the impact of the Government’s proposals for ‘no win, no fee’ agreements. Press releases, tweets, etc.

Evidence from Berlin shows a clear correlation between the human birth rate and the stork population, thus proving that storks bring babies. Or is this faulty logic? I wonder if we can find some other examples. Step forward the Access to Justice Action Group (AJAG) and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL). Here are

Lord Justice Jackson has decided that the recovery of success fees from defendants is wrong. The senior judiciary has agreed (see for example paragraph 39 of Sousa v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2011] EWCA Civ 194). The European Court of Human Rights has agreed (see MGN Limited v United Kingdom (Application No. 39401/04)). The

I mentioned the other day the poll of members of the public commissioned by Irwin Mitchell as part of their anti-Jackson lobbying. One of the “results” from this poll was: • Almost half (47%) say that they would be less likely to bring a claim for compensation if they thought they may have to pay

Dominic Regan, writing in the New Law Journal, on claimant lobbying over Jackson implementation : “All the lobbying and meetings behind closed doors has had as much impact as a blow from a wet lettuce leaf upon Mike Tyson.” Where did it all go wrong for the claimant lobby? One problem is that much of

The Law Society’s Model CFA agreement, for use in personal injury and clinical negligence cases only, defines “win” as: “Your claim for damages is finally decided in your favour, whether by a court decision or an agreement to pay you damages or in any way that you derive benefit from pursuing the claim.” What does

Judgment was handed down yesterday by the Court of Appeal in Sousa v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2011] EWCA Civ 194. This case concerned a claimant who suffered subsidence damage to his property caused by tree roots of a tree owned by the defendant. The claimant’s damages were insured under an insurance policy between

In Sibthorpe & Morris v London Borough of Southwark [2011] EWCA Civ 25 the Court of Appeal declined to strike down as unlawful (on the basis of champerty) CFAs where the claimants’ solicitors agreed to indemnify the claimants against adverse costs orders. The February 2011 edition of Litigation Funding reported the claimants’ solicitors as saying

The other day I posted a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment about how the need for success fees could be avoided if claimant lawyers stopped bringing bad claims. However, there was meant to be a serious point underlying it. APIL’s opposition to the Jackson proposals to end recoverability of success fees can be seen from APIL’s president