Imperfect solutions for access to justice -success fees are no longer recoverable in English defamation and privacy cases – Suneet Sharma

12 12 2018

On 29 November 2018, the Government published its response to the 2013 consultation on costs protection in defamation and privacy claims. In particular, the written statement by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice summarizes the amendments to costs provisions, raising access to justice concerns. Read the rest of this entry »





Recoverability of CFA success fees in defamation and privacy claims to be abolished (but ATE to remain for now) – Iain Wilson

30 11 2018

The government has announced that from 6 April 2019 conditional fee agreement (‘CFA’) success fees will no longer be recoverable from opponents in defamation and privacy claims.  The Ministerial Statement made by David Gauke the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary can be found here. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Flood v Times Newspapers, CFA appeals dismissed, future of the scheme left open – Aidan Wills

20 04 2017

On 11 April 2017 the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed three appeals brought by media organisations challenging the article 10 ECHR compliance of the recovery of additional liabilities (CFA success fees and ATE insurance premiums) from defendants in ‘publication cases.’ ([2017] UKSC 33). Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a claimant lawyer’s perspective – Nigel Tait

14 04 2017

There is an old saying that when a woman is forced to choose between two men, she opts for the third, and so it is with the Supreme Court’s decision in Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood, Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd, and Frost and others v MGN Ltd [2017] UKSC 33. Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a response to Keith Mathieson from a lawyer who acts for both claimants and defendants – Jonathan Coad

13 04 2017

In his piece on Inforrm yesterday, Keith Mathieson begins by describing the use of CFAs in cases against the media as a “scandal”. Evidently the Supreme Court did not agree with him – unanimously. One of the titles for whom he acts has already described judges with whom they disagree as “Enemies of the people”, so I suppose the judges can count themselves lucky not to have been attacked in similar terms. Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a defence lawyer’s perspective – Keith Mathieson

12 04 2017

The use of CFAs in cases against the media had become a scandal long before this appeal was heard.  A mechanism intended to provide access to justice had become a gravy train for claimant lawyers.  As claimant lawyers know, the mere threat of a CFA and ATE insurance could be used to bulldoze a media company into submission. Read the rest of this entry »





News: Supreme Court dismisses newspapers’ Article 10 CFA appeals

11 04 2017

In a unanimous judgment ([2017] UKSC 33) handed down today the UK Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by Times Newspapers, Associated Newspapers and MGN against orders that they pay success fees and after the event insurance premiums (“additional liabilities”) under conditional fee agreements (“CFAs”) in libel and privacy claims. Read the rest of this entry »