header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 September 2011 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Opinion , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

The death of referral fees?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Dominic Regan welcomes the government’s u-turn on referral fees

The payment of referral fees in personal injury cases is to be banned. Yet again Lord Justice Jackson has got what he wants. This may presage other seismic shifts.

The position in Whitehall in the summer of 2010 was that solicitors who wanted to spend their money to secure work should be free to do so. In his report Common Sense, Common Safety last autumn

Lord Young identified concerns:
 

  • Those who paid out the most got the most.
  • A firm handing out these fees got one hundred times more cases than those who didn’t pay fees.
  • There was no correlation between payment and quality of work. Indeed, the higher fee remitted meant that the balance left to cover the cost of doing a proper job for the client was severely diminished.

Earlier this year the Legal Services Board published a report suggesting that since claimants were not bothered about these fees (which were borne by their own solicitor) we should

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll