header-logo header-logo

Is the end nigh for ‘no win no fee’?

24 September 2025
Issue: 8132 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory , Legal services , Consumer
printer mail-detail
Regulators plan to ‘step up’ their action against poor practice in high-volume consumer cases such as data breaches, diesel car emissions and housing disrepair claims

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has already closed down five firms, is currently investigating 76 law firms involved in these types of claims, and has written to more than 500 other firms asking them to complete a mandatory declaration of compliance.

Last week, it formally asked lawyers for their views on the issue by 14 November, in a discussion paper, ‘How can the high-volume consumer claims market work better for consumer?’. It is exploring five areas in particular—transparency and clarity, risks around third-party litigation funding, after-the-event insurance, regulating a changing marketplace, and wider improvements for consumers across the system.

One potential reform under consideration concerns the use of ‘no win no fee’, which the SRA paper states ‘falsely implies that there is nothing to be lost in commencing such litigation, which is clearly not the case’. The SRA asks, ‘Should we seek to restrict, prevent or caveat use of the term “no win, no fee”? Should this marketing term be banned across the board?’

The regulator said it will shortly issue further warning notices to firms highlighting their obligations regarding ‘no win no fee’ cases and use of litigation funding.

Chair of the SRA board Anna Bradley said: ‘The risks and issues we are seeing in the high-volume consumer claims market are unprecedented.

‘Too many firms don't have their house in order, so we need to use all the levers at our disposal to protect consumers and identify poor practice.’

Law Society president Richard Atkinson said effective regulatory oversight was ‘essential’ but cautioned against ‘going too far. Over-regulation, or any measures could restrict access to justice and harm people that these services are meant to protect’. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll