*/
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Lawrence concerned the pre-Jackson costs recovery regime in the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), which has since been replaced by a different scheme under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, although the previous scheme continues to apply for many pending cases.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Lawrence concerned the pre-Jackson costs recovery regime in the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), which has since been replaced by a different scheme under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, although the previous scheme continues to apply for many pending cases.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.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
