*/
The recovery of success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums from losing defendants is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Supreme Court has ruled in a long-awaited judgment.
Coventry v Lawrence concerned the pre-Jackson costs recovery regime in the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), which has since been replaced by a different scheme under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, although the previous scheme continues to apply for many pending cases.
By a majority of five to two, the court held that the AJA 1999 costs regime, although flawed, provided a proportionate way of achieving access to justice.
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, and Supreme Court President, Lord Neuberger, said the scheme was justified by the need to widen access to justice to litigants following the withdrawal of legal aid.
Dissenting, Lord Clarke argued that the old regime unfairly discriminated against some classes of respondent.
The case concerned a noise nuisance claim by bungalow owners against the operators of nearby speedway track. The appellant bungalow owners proceeded on a CFA. After their success at trial the judge ordered the respondents to pay 60% of the appellants’ costs, which included 60% of the success fee and ATE insurance premium. They challenged the liability, claiming it infringed their fair trial rights under Art 6 of the Convention.
The Bar Council, which had intervened in the case, welcomed the decision as being in the best interests of clients and practitioners.
The recovery of success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums from losing defendants is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Supreme Court has ruled in a long-awaited judgment.
Coventry v Lawrence concerned the pre-Jackson costs recovery regime in the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), which has since been replaced by a different scheme under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, although the previous scheme continues to apply for many pending cases.
By a majority of five to two, the court held that the AJA 1999 costs regime, although flawed, provided a proportionate way of achieving access to justice.
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, and Supreme Court President, Lord Neuberger, said the scheme was justified by the need to widen access to justice to litigants following the withdrawal of legal aid.
Dissenting, Lord Clarke argued that the old regime unfairly discriminated against some classes of respondent.
The case concerned a noise nuisance claim by bungalow owners against the operators of nearby speedway track. The appellant bungalow owners proceeded on a CFA. After their success at trial the judge ordered the respondents to pay 60% of the appellants’ costs, which included 60% of the success fee and ATE insurance premium. They challenged the liability, claiming it infringed their fair trial rights under Art 6 of the Convention.
The Bar Council, which had intervened in the case, welcomed the decision as being in the best interests of clients and practitioners.
The beginning of the legal year offers the opportunity for a renewed commitment to justice and the rule of law both at home and abroad
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
Providing bespoke mortgage and protection solutions for barristers
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
Yasmin Ilhan explains the Law Commission’s proposals for a quicker, easier and more effective contempt of court regime
Irresponsible use of AI can lead to serious and embarrassing consequences. Sam Thomas briefs barristers on the five key risks and how to avoid them
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
