header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 February 2015 / Francis Kendall
Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice , Costs , Jackson
printer mail-detail

The lament of the DBA

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

What does the future hold for damages-based agreements, asks Francis Kendall

A damages-based agreement (DBA) is an agreement between a lawyer and his client under which the client agrees to pay the lawyer a percentage of any sums recovered in a claim. The lawyer is not paid if the case is lost. Previously unlawful for contentious work (ignoring employment and other tribunal claims), s 45 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, supported by the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/609), allowed DBAs from 1 April 2013—a direct result of the Jackson report.

The maximum payment that the lawyer can recover from the client’s damages is capped at 25% of damages (excluding damages for future care and loss) in personal injury cases; 35% of damages on employment tribunal cases (as has existed since 2010); and 50% of damages in all other cases.

Costs recovery from the losing party will proceed as usual based on the costs actually incurred

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
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?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
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
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
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
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll