header-logo header-logo

20 January 2010
Issue: 7401 / Categories: Legal News , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Straw proposes fee cut

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has proposed a dramatic cut to the success fees lawyers can charge for winning defamation cases, days after the publication of Jackson LJ’s final report.

Currently, lawyers can double their fee by charging a 100% uplift under conditional fee agreements (CFAs) in “no win, no fee” cases.
According to Straw, such generous fees are not justified in defamation cases due to their high success rate. Instead, he proposes that the success fee be no more than 10%.

The proposal, outlined in the Ministry of Justice consultation paper, Controlling Costs in Defamation Proceedings – Reducing Conditional Fee Agreement Success Fees, follows concerns that the cost of defending defamation proceedings is stymieing freedom of expression. Potentially ruinous legal costs are deterring the press from publishing articles that are in the public interest, or forcing them to settle rather than defend actions. Straw said: “Lawyers need to recover their costs and be rewarded for their efforts and the risks they undertake when providing people with access to justice in ‘no win no fee’ cases.

“But evidence suggests that the regular doubling of fees that currently takes place is simply not justified and the balance of costs between claimant and defendant needs to be reconsidered.”

“Sir Rupert Jackson’s comprehensive review of costs in the civil courts, which was published last week, proposed a broad range of recommendations for reform.  I welcome that substantial and detailed report and I look forward to considering the proposals in detail. But the case for an urgent interim measure for dealing with success fees in defamation cases has become clear.”

The consultation closes on 16 February 2010.
 

Issue: 7401 / Categories: Legal News , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll