*/
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.
Justice system requires urgent attention and next steps on the Harman Review
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private Finance
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
Many disabled barristers face entrenched obstacles to KC appointment – both procedural and systemic, writes Diego F Soto-Miranda
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
For over three decades, the Bar Mock Trial Competition has boosted the skills, knowledge and confidence of tens of thousands of state school students – as sixth-form teacher Conor Duffy and Young Citizens’ Akasa Pradhan report
Suzie Miller’s latest play puts the legal system centre stage once more. Will it galvanise change? asks Rehna Azim
