CFAs

Last week’s Law Society Gazette had an article on the implications of the Jackson proposals for clinical negligence claims. The proposal to end recoverability of success fees was criticised. The thrust of the objection was that “the proposal will not reduce costs but instead move a significant part of them from a guilty defendant to […]

Specialist costs counsel Dr Mark Friston has put together an invaluable guide to the recent decision in MGN v United Kingdom, concerning success fees. He has been kind enough to allow the Legal Costs Blog to host a copy. It can be read: here. One Blog reader, when thanking Mark in advance for this, commented

I pop out of the office for a few days to deal with a small detailed assessment hearing (£1.6 million costs claim for personal injury matter involving single claimant) and I miss, arguably, the most important costs decision of the past decade. Last week the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) handed down judgment in

Following in the wake of Lord Justice Jackson’s comments in Pankhurst v White [2010] EWCA Civ 1445 concerning “grotesque” funding arrangements, legal expenses insurer DAS has decided this represents a good opportunity to attack Jackson’s costs proposals. Kathryn Mortimer, head of legal services at DAS, said in a widely reported Press Release: “Deduction of legal

Lord Justice Jackson, giving the leading judgment in the case of Pankhurst v White [2010] EWCA Civ 1445, described the claimant’s solicitors’ funding arrangement as “grotesque”. What generated this fury, aside from the fact that there was a success fee claimed and the claimant had the benefit of ATE obviously? The claimant’s solicitors had entered

A while ago I commented on the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) dropping their libel action against science writer Simon Singh where the BCA had sued Dr Singh over a newspaper article in which he alleged that the organisation promoted “bogus treatments”. I fear that my comments on alternative treatments may have opened a whole can

The following account subsequently formed the basis for an employers liability claim supported by a conditional fee agreement.  With a fixed 25% success fee obviously. [youtube]zZUJLO6lMhI[/youtube] (If you receive the Legal Costs Blog via email you made need to adjust your security settings to view the video.)  

I think we can all agree that the revocation of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 was a sad day for the legal costs world. Regrettably, the Jackson Costs Review did not recommend that these Regulations should be restored. The proposal to end recoverability of additional liabilities has much to commend it but the attractions

In the course of writing a forthcoming Update: Costs for the Solicitors Journal, concerning naming the wrong defendant in a CFA, I was considering the case of Law v Liverpool City Council [2005] EWHC 90020 (Costs) which deals with this issue. Although unreported, this case usually has the date of judgment being recorded as 10