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
DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos
he 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
NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul
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
NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere
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
NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall
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
NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll