*/
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Lawrence concerned the pre-Jackson costs recovery regime in the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), which has since been replaced by a different scheme under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, although the previous scheme continues to apply for many pending cases.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Lawrence concerned the pre-Jackson costs recovery regime in the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), which has since been replaced by a different scheme under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, although the previous scheme continues to apply for many pending cases.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.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC present their best buys for this holiday season
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
