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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll