header-logo header-logo

Is the end nigh for ‘no win no fee’?

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

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
back-to-top-scroll