header-logo header-logo

Contingency matters

11 March 2010 / Kerry Underwood
Issue: 7408 / Categories: Features , Damages , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Kerry Underwood welcomes the first steps to full contingency fees

Contingency fee agreements are prohibited in any issued case in the High Court or County Court in England and Wales, but this may be about to change, as a result of the Jackson Report.

“Contingency fee” is used to describe an agreement by which the client’s lawyer is only paid if the claim is successful and is then paid out of damages received, usually as a percentage of those damages, the percentage being fixed in advance of the claim being made. Pure conditional fee agreements are a form of contingency fee in that the client’s obligation to pay is contingent upon winning but that extra fee is a percentage uplift on costs and is unrelated to damages.

Success fees conditional

No win, lower fee conditional fee agreements, increasingly used in commercial cases, are a strange hybrid where, as the name suggests, the solicitor gets a higher hourly rate for winning, but still gets paid in the event of defeat, albeit a lower fee.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll