header-logo header-logo

No fee fiasco?

27 January 2011
Issue: 7450 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Success fees in jeopardy after Strasbourg ruling

The Daily Mirror newspaper’s freedom of expression was breached by a “success fee” it had to pay after it lost a privacy case brought by supermodel Naomi Campbell, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held.
Ruling unanimously in MGN v UK (Application number 39401/04), the Court found that the “success fee”—the extra fee paid to Campbell’s lawyers in return for the risk involved in running a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) or “no win, no fee” case—was disproportionate.

The Mirror was ordered to pay £3,500 damages to Campbell in 2004 after the House of Lords ruled her right to privacy had been breached by a front-page story revealing her attendance at Narcotics Anonymous. Her legal costs came to more than £1m, including £288,468 base costs, £279,981.35 in success fees and £26,020 disbursements.

Kevin Bays, partner at Davenport Lyons, who advised Mirror Group Newspapers, says: “The decision simply confirms what the media has been saying for years—recoverable success fees are totally disproportionate and a violation of the right to freedom of speech.”

The Ministry of Justice is currently running a consultation on proposals to reform CFAs due to close on 14 February, recommending that damages be increased by 10% and lawyers claim a proportion of these, and that CFAs be scrapped.

However, Declan Cushley, partner at Browne Jacobson, who specialises in reputation management, says the decision should not be seen as an excuse for the government to abolish the current system of CFAs.
Cushley adds: “In this instance Miss Campbell is no ordinary UK citizen but a millionaire with the ability to pay her lawyers. The system was never designed to be abused by the super-rich in libel and defamation cases and so the decision of the ECtHR on the facts of this case is absolutely right. The legal profession needs to take a reasonable and sensible approach to how we approach these arrangements and if we don’t do so soon this essential aid ensuring that all have at least the opportunity to defend their position will be gone forever.”
 

Issue: 7450 / 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