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

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll