header-logo header-logo

24 June 2010
Issue: 7423 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No win, no fee in tribunals

Conditional fee agreements (CFAs) can be used in tribunal cases, the senior costs judge has held.

In Tel-Ka Talk Ltd v Commissioners of HM Revenue & Customs Master Hurst ruled that the use of “no win, no fee” cases or CFAs was lawful.
Delivering judgment Master Hurst said: “The position is that in the employment tribunal, solicitors may act under regulated damages based agreements or under CFAs.

“Failure to comply with the Damages Based Agreements Regulations may render the agreement unenforceable. It seems likely that in the future, legal representatives in the employment tribunal will rely on conditional fee agreements which are no longer regulated and which can be drafted in such a way as to produce the same result as a contingency fee agreement.”

In the case, Tel-Ka Talk was appealing against decisions of HMRC to refuse repayment of VAT input tax credit claimed by the company. The company suffered cash flow difficulties due to the withholding of VAT and found it difficult to fund the legal costs of their tribunal hearing.

The solicitors agreed to continue to act on a contingency fee basis and entered into a non-contentious business agreement. The contingency fee arrangement enabled the company to continue to pursue its claim and recover the VAT repayment it was owed by HMRC.

The legality of contingency fees before tribunals is implicitly acknowledged in the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, and the Law Society believes hundreds of solicitors enter into such agreements before tribunals every year.

Issue: 7423 / 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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll