David Wright examines a recurring costs theme
- Surrey v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust: whether a litigant’s choice of funding was reasonable in the context of a change in funding from legal aid to conditional fee agreement.
The question of whether a litigant’s choice of funding was reasonable has been a recurring theme in costs for many years. In the recent case of Surrey v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1598 (QB), [2016] All ER (D) 33 (Jul) the issue arose in the context of a change in funding from legal aid to conditional fee agreement (CFA) shortly before the introduction of the Jackson reforms.
In each of the three cases which formed the subject of the appeal, the claimants had originally had the benefit of public funding but transferred to a CFA on advice from their solicitors shortly before the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). The claimants were advised
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
