*/
The Bar Council has reacted with interest to Lord Justice Jackson’s provisional view on “no win no fee” agreements contained in his preliminary report in his Review of Civil Litigation Costs.
In the report, published on 8 May, Jackson LJ states: “following the retraction of legal aid, either conditional fee agreements (CFAs) or some other system of payment by results (contingent fee agreements, CLAF, SLAS, third party funding agreements etc) must exist in order to facilitate access to justice.” “The real issue … is how CFAs or alternative ‘no win – no fee’ arrangements should be structured, not whether they should exist,” he continues.
Welcoming the report, the Bar Chairman, Desmond Browne QC, said: “Public funding for civil cases is now unavailable in many areas. Very careful consideration therefore needs to be given to the means whereby meritorious litigants are assured of the access to justice which they deserve.”
Michael Todd QC, Chair of the Bar Council Jackson Working Group, said: “I note that Lord Justice Jackson has focused on questions relating to cost shifting, fixed costs, personal injury claims, controlling the costs of ‘heavy’ litigation, CFAs and ATE insurance, and alternative methods of funding access to civil justice. We are concerned that the ever-increasing costs burden of civil litigation results in a denial of access to justice for the many people who cannot afford those costs. That is clearly not in the public interest.”
In the report, published on 8 May, Jackson LJ states: “following the retraction of legal aid, either conditional fee agreements (CFAs) or some other system of payment by results (contingent fee agreements, CLAF, SLAS, third party funding agreements etc) must exist in order to facilitate access to justice.” “The real issue … is how CFAs or alternative ‘no win – no fee’ arrangements should be structured, not whether they should exist,” he continues.
Welcoming the report, the Bar Chairman, Desmond Browne QC, said: “Public funding for civil cases is now unavailable in many areas. Very careful consideration therefore needs to be given to the means whereby meritorious litigants are assured of the access to justice which they deserve.”
Michael Todd QC, Chair of the Bar Council Jackson Working Group, said: “I note that Lord Justice Jackson has focused on questions relating to cost shifting, fixed costs, personal injury claims, controlling the costs of ‘heavy’ litigation, CFAs and ATE insurance, and alternative methods of funding access to civil justice. We are concerned that the ever-increasing costs burden of civil litigation results in a denial of access to justice for the many people who cannot afford those costs. That is clearly not in the public interest.”
The Bar Council has reacted with interest to Lord Justice Jackson’s provisional view on “no win no fee” agreements contained in his preliminary report in his Review of Civil Litigation Costs.
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)
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
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
