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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll