header-logo header-logo

24 September 2025
Issue: 8132 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory , Legal services , Consumer
printer mail-detail

Is the end nigh for ‘no win no fee’?

Regulators plan to ‘step up’ their action against poor practice in high-volume consumer cases such as data breaches, diesel car emissions and housing disrepair claims

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has already closed down five firms, is currently investigating 76 law firms involved in these types of claims, and has written to more than 500 other firms asking them to complete a mandatory declaration of compliance.

Last week, it formally asked lawyers for their views on the issue by 14 November, in a discussion paper, ‘How can the high-volume consumer claims market work better for consumer?’. It is exploring five areas in particular—transparency and clarity, risks around third-party litigation funding, after-the-event insurance, regulating a changing marketplace, and wider improvements for consumers across the system.

One potential reform under consideration concerns the use of ‘no win no fee’, which the SRA paper states ‘falsely implies that there is nothing to be lost in commencing such litigation, which is clearly not the case’. The SRA asks, ‘Should we seek to restrict, prevent or caveat use of the term “no win, no fee”? Should this marketing term be banned across the board?’

The regulator said it will shortly issue further warning notices to firms highlighting their obligations regarding ‘no win no fee’ cases and use of litigation funding.

Chair of the SRA board Anna Bradley said: ‘The risks and issues we are seeing in the high-volume consumer claims market are unprecedented.

‘Too many firms don't have their house in order, so we need to use all the levers at our disposal to protect consumers and identify poor practice.’

Law Society president Richard Atkinson said effective regulatory oversight was ‘essential’ but cautioned against ‘going too far. Over-regulation, or any measures could restrict access to justice and harm people that these services are meant to protect’. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll