14 August 2014 / Dominic Regan

Issue: 7619 / Categories: Opinion

printer

mail-detail

Will Coventry trump Mitchell?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

comment_regan

Dominic Regan predicts that Coventry v Lawrence heralds more bad news for litigators

Nineteen days. That is how long the litigation truce lasted. Denton, handed down on 4 July, restored some semblance of litigation order. On 23 July the Supreme Court gave judgment in Coventry v Lawrence and in so doing raised an issue worth potentially billions of pounds to the legal profession (see Denton v TH White Ltd; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 906 and Coventry and others v Lawrence and another (No 2 ) [2014] UKSC 46). Lord Neuberger, president no less of the court, lobbed in an issue that has already been seized upon by paying parties—a point that could decimate solicitors, barristers and after-the-event (ATE) insurers. Very simply, the paying respondents contended that to require them to pay a success fee and an ATE premium would constitute a breach of Art 6 (the right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human rights (see para 38).

This liability

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Will Coventry trump Mitchell?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

comment_regan

Dominic Regan predicts that Coventry v Lawrence heralds more bad news for litigators

Nineteen days. That is how long the litigation truce lasted. Denton, handed down on 4 July, restored some semblance of litigation order. On 23 July the Supreme Court gave judgment in Coventry v Lawrence and in so doing raised an issue worth potentially billions of pounds to the legal profession (see Denton v TH White Ltd; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 906 and Coventry and others v Lawrence and another (No 2 ) [2014] UKSC 46). Lord Neuberger, president no less of the court, lobbed in an issue that has already been seized upon by paying parties—a point that could decimate solicitors, barristers and after-the-event (ATE) insurers. Very simply, the paying respondents contended that to require them to pay a success fee and an ATE premium would constitute a breach of Art 6 (the right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human rights (see para 38).

This liability

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

Your magistrates’ court needs you!

Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits

A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’

back-to-top-scroll