*/
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Lawrence concerned the pre-Jackson costs recovery regime in the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), which has since been replaced by a different scheme under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, although the previous scheme continues to apply for many pending cases.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Lawrence concerned the pre-Jackson costs recovery regime in the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), which has since been replaced by a different scheme under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, although the previous scheme continues to apply for many pending cases.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.
It’s been a particularly hectic period in both the political sphere and our working lives
Casey Randall explores the benefits of prenatal paternity testing and explains how the test is performed
Philip N Bristow explains how to unlock your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step
Kate West discusses how best to interpret a drug test report, and the common misconceptions about what can be learnt from a drug test
Ashley Hodgkinson looks at drug testing methods and some of the most common ways people try to cheat a drug test
Clerksroom Chambers has recruited Matthew Wildish from 3 Paper Buildings (3PB) to a newly created position of Director of Clerking. Matthew joined the team at Clerksroom on 1 June
How did the international DJ and BBC Radio 1Xtra presenter find his transition to the Criminal Bar? Mark Robinsons secrets of a successful career change and his perception-breaking projects
Barrister, historian, legal biographer it was pure serendipity that the whirlwind silk went into the law and found his niche as a bestselling author, finds David Rhodes
Surely diversity of thought at the Bar is a good thing? Why are chambers shoehorning all applicants for pupillage into the same mould? Roxy Lackschewitz-Martin looks at the diagnostic gap and neurodiversity in pupillage applications
Its been a particularly hectic period in both the political sphere and our working lives
On the hunt for the perfect beach book/listen? Circuit Leaders, Michelle Heeley QC, Richard Wright QC, Kate Brunner QC, Lisa Roberts QC and Christine Agnew QC share their recommendations
