Keep up to date with Salmons Solicitors using our news section for the latest information.
Another first class mess! Thank you European Court of Human Rights
Stephen Brookes reviews the decision of the Supreme Court in Coventry and Lawrence (2014).
Coventry v Lawrence was a case which shows that determination counts for everything in litigation, and the capacity for the courts to create utter chaos in the operation of civil costs recovery remains undiminished. Lawrence and Shields occupied a bungalow a few hundred yards from a speedway stadium and their enjoyment of their property was affected by the noise. They sued the stadium owner and the racetrack owner for damages for the civil wrong of nuisance.They won in the lower court, lost in the Court of Appeal, appealed and won in the Supreme Court. So far so good - that's the part about the merits of determination.
Now for the dog's dinner.
The costs bill came in at a staggering £400,000 and the losers were ordered to pay, in addition, a success fee of 60% on that and an insurance premium of £210,000.
Success fees are a premium charged by the solicitors who won the case for taking the risk that they would receive no payment at all under a no win no fee agreement if they lost the case and the insurance was paid to obtain a insurance cover to pay the other side's legal costs in the event the claim failed.
The 1999 Access to Justice Act made success fees and an insurance premium recoverable from the losing party. The costs of the losing claims are spread amongst the winning claims akin to insurance, where the costs of the claims are spread amongst the policyholders who purchase policies. Such cost items are not (generally) recoverable for no win no cases post-dating 31st March 2013.
The losers in Lawrence argued that having to pay success fees and an insurance premium on that amount breached their human rights upon the grounds that the European Court of Human Rights had suggested as such in MGN Ltd v UK in 2011.
The Court decided that that MAY be the case but if it was a point to be pursued, the court was going to arrange another hearing and invite the Government to make representations on the reasons why the recoverability scheme had been enacted in that way.
So, now in every case in the land which was funded by a no win no fee agreement entered into before 1st April 2013, where costs are to be recovered, we shall have every fresh from their SATs costs negotiator pointing to this case and refusing to pay success fees, claiming ( WRONGLY !! ) that this case is authority for the propostion that success fees breach human rights.
Nonsense. It is only authority for the proposition that the case was adjourned on this point but if it's a good enough case to quote, why let factual accuracy stand in the way!
Latest News Articles
Has the tide has finally turned in social services failure to remove cases? Read More
Stephen Brookes, Assessor of the Personal Injury Panel of the Law Society, looks at the recent decision in Crawley v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Read More
The long running saga concerning the entitlement of an estranged adult child cut out of a deceased's parent's will is finally resolved, writes Donna Riley of Salmons Solicitors. Read More
The Government is still deluding itself in thinking that denial of access to justice will cause insurance premiums to fall. Read the full report here - Read More
Latest Government attempts to deny access to the courts are responded to by the Solicitors' profession. Read More
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers calls for a complete ban on nuisance calls about accident claims
APIL have issued recently a press release to try and persuade the Government to put an outright ban on intimidating cold callers pestering members of the public to make accident claims for accidents which they have never had. Read More
The Government's plans to prevent irritating claims being brought against their friends in the insurance industry continue to attract criticism. Read More
Stephen Brookes looks at two personal injury cases on either side of the fence; in the former case the claimant won but in the latter case the claimant failed. Read More
If ever there was a minefield in the application of applicable rules it is in the area of discrimination law. Stephen Brookes reviews the recent case of Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ( 2015) Read More
A recent case on the duty of swimming pool lifeguards confirms 1999 guidance Read More
Supreme Court decision changes the meaning of an unlawful penalty charge in contract law - Beavis v Parking Eye reviewed Read More
Working time might now include travel to and from the first and the last job for employees who are based at home. Read More
Following the decision of Salmons Solicitors to withdraw from all legal aid work upon the grounds of unsustainable remuneration levels, there is increasing pressure for criminal defence legal practices. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews two recent personal injury claims where the claimants both failed. Read More
There can be few more fun pursuits than taking your off roader into difficult and challenging off road terrain, but before you do so, a cautionary word about a recent change of insurance law, writes Stephen Brookes. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews the recent case of Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton on the inclusion of overtime into holiday pay calculations. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews the decision of the Supreme Court in Coventry and Lawrence (2014) Read More
High Court Judge rules Government's Motor Insurers Compensation Scheme for uninsured drivers unlawful. The case is reviewed by our personal injury specialist Stephen Brookes Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews two recent cases dealing with the question of when an employer can be liable for injuries inflicted by a member of the workforce on another person Read More
Farah Gilani reviews a January 2014 case involving a prosecution over an unguarded piece of machinery. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews a recent case involving an injury compensation claim brought by one friend against another arising out of the use of loaned leisure equipment. Read More