header-logo header-logo

Jackson under attack

17 February 2011
Issue: 7453 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Jackson LJ’s plans for CFAs could have unlawful impact

Leading counsel’s opinion has warned that Lord Justice Jackson’s plans to restrict conditional fee arrangements (CFAs) could be unlawful because of their impact on victims of serious accidents.

The government’s consultation on civil costs, which closed this week, broadly accepted Jackson LJ’s recommendations that damages be increased by 10% and that claimants pay some of their legal fees out of their compensation.

According to counsel’s opinion obtained by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, however, these proposals could contravene Arts 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights because disabled people could be denied access to justice.

The opinion, written by Nigel Pleming QC and Colin Thomann of 39 Essex Street, warns that the government’s proposals “seem to us to place claimants who have suffered the most complex personal injury at a particular disadvantage as regards their prospects of securing adequate legal representation, financial protection from adverse costs consequences, and adequate compensation to permit a return to active daily life”.

It later adds: “It follows that there are real prospects of a Convention based challenge to the funding reform proposals.”

Lord Justice Jackson has criticised the government for not seeking to implement his proposals in full. The Ministry of Justice green paper proposes allowing recoverability of after-the-event insurance premiums where they relate to disbursements and allowing damages to be increased in CFA cases only. Jackson recommended abolishing recoverability and increasing damages generally.

In a letter to Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, last month, Jackson LJ said the amendments “would create perverse incentives and undermine the structure of the reforms”.

Christopher Hancock QC, chairman of the Commercial Bar Association, warned the proposals could lead to “acute” problems for litigants. “The combination of cuts to legal aid and plans which will impact severely on funding of smaller cases must not be allowed to exclude whole categories of parties from the ability to seek legal redress,” he said.

Issue: 7453 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll