*/
The Bar Council has reacted with interest to Lord Justice Jackson’s provisional view on “no win no fee” agreements contained in his preliminary report in his Review of Civil Litigation Costs.
In the report, published on 8 May, Jackson LJ states: “following the retraction of legal aid, either conditional fee agreements (CFAs) or some other system of payment by results (contingent fee agreements, CLAF, SLAS, third party funding agreements etc) must exist in order to facilitate access to justice.” “The real issue … is how CFAs or alternative ‘no win – no fee’ arrangements should be structured, not whether they should exist,” he continues.
Welcoming the report, the Bar Chairman, Desmond Browne QC, said: “Public funding for civil cases is now unavailable in many areas. Very careful consideration therefore needs to be given to the means whereby meritorious litigants are assured of the access to justice which they deserve.”
Michael Todd QC, Chair of the Bar Council Jackson Working Group, said: “I note that Lord Justice Jackson has focused on questions relating to cost shifting, fixed costs, personal injury claims, controlling the costs of ‘heavy’ litigation, CFAs and ATE insurance, and alternative methods of funding access to civil justice. We are concerned that the ever-increasing costs burden of civil litigation results in a denial of access to justice for the many people who cannot afford those costs. That is clearly not in the public interest.”
In the report, published on 8 May, Jackson LJ states: “following the retraction of legal aid, either conditional fee agreements (CFAs) or some other system of payment by results (contingent fee agreements, CLAF, SLAS, third party funding agreements etc) must exist in order to facilitate access to justice.” “The real issue … is how CFAs or alternative ‘no win – no fee’ arrangements should be structured, not whether they should exist,” he continues.
Welcoming the report, the Bar Chairman, Desmond Browne QC, said: “Public funding for civil cases is now unavailable in many areas. Very careful consideration therefore needs to be given to the means whereby meritorious litigants are assured of the access to justice which they deserve.”
Michael Todd QC, Chair of the Bar Council Jackson Working Group, said: “I note that Lord Justice Jackson has focused on questions relating to cost shifting, fixed costs, personal injury claims, controlling the costs of ‘heavy’ litigation, CFAs and ATE insurance, and alternative methods of funding access to civil justice. We are concerned that the ever-increasing costs burden of civil litigation results in a denial of access to justice for the many people who cannot afford those costs. That is clearly not in the public interest.”
The Bar Council has reacted with interest to Lord Justice Jackson’s provisional view on “no win no fee” agreements contained in his preliminary report in his Review of Civil Litigation Costs.
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
