header-logo header-logo

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

No fee fiasco?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll