The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

google Morris & Steel vs United Kingdom and you will see what i mean.

Sadly I watched the docu they made about this! Similarly, I seen the version whereby the granny got burned and sued etc (the PI claims gone bad version)!

Linky to case details here: ---> McLibel Case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

id hold the reference to referals off there, cos they may see it as more commercial interest than that of the consumer.

Not at all mate, its collectively come from the forums......

It is definitely a consumer fight - we can prove that

[pompeyfaith]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Ok Paul as I used write to them ill hold of confirming my email address so it is not sent glad I caught your message in time lol

[pompeyfaith]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Nearly Done! Now check your email...

The confirmation email may take a few minutes to arrive — please be patient.

If you use web-based email or have 'junk mail' filters, you may wish to check your bulk/spam mail folders: sometimes, our messages are marked that way.
You must now click on the link within the email we've just sent you -
if you do not, your message to your MP will not be sent.
(Don't worry - we'll hang on to your message while you're checking your email

Soon as I get the nod from niddy or paul ill confirm email address

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Soon as I get the nod from niddy or paul ill confirm email address

Mate it's fine - go for it.

I'm doing it as well, basically on behalf of the user here - nothing commercial in it......

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Will this be across the UK or just in England ?

It would also be inflicted upon Wales, Ulster and the Isle of Wight.

It would not affect Scotland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

OK thanks niddy email confirmed and letter sent.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

I know that my old mate Richard Miller is opposed to this nonsense.

who?

Richard Miller (link)

Mind you, the legal profession is itself partly responsible for what has happened. The matter of the cost of legal aid came up for discussion over two decades ago because the parsimonious kakistocracy of the day objected to the way that costs seemed to be rising and, one might suspect, some of the more boorish yahoos objected to the lower orders suing their betters. It was then decided to cut the legal aid budget and, instead, largely fund litigation on a 'profit-based' model. Unlike the American system of contingency fees, however, where the successful shyster gets a proportion of the damages awarded and hence has an obvious incentive to claim ever more astronomical amounts (vide Pearson v Chung - link) the system in the UK was to use the 'much better' conditional fee.

Of course, this did nothing whatever to reduce the number of claims being brought. If anything, the number of claims increased as the number of ambulance-chasing claims managers proliferated, spreading faster across the system than dry rot fungus and with similarly beneficial results.

Until changes in the law allowed the success fee to be recovered from an unsuccessful defendant, it was commonplace for a conditional fee agreement to include some form of insurance policy to pay for costs should the claim not succeed. Thus ensured of reasonable remuneration whatever the outcome, claims abounded from people who, in days gone by, would probably just have been asked why they'd not looked where they were going. Insurance companies soon realised it would be faster and far cheaper to settle the claims out of court, as the level of damages would be rather less than the combined total of basic fees and success fees payable to the winning claimant's legal representative(s), or even the cost of their own legal fees should the claim fail.

The latest round of meddling will not have the desired effect, as it plainly will not make access to law or justice any more democratic, nor will it reduce costs. A far better idea would be to provide tax incentives for lawyers to contribute to an independent legal aid service, either by providing a few hours each week pro bono, or by contributing financially to such a scheme.

I am hardly astonished to see that the current version of this barmy Bill has significantly diluted the restrictions it initially sought to impose on access to Legal Aid in criminal proceedings, as those had only been included to be removed or reduced subsequently as a 'concession' to opposition of such damnable, nazified nonsense. As I told Richard some months ago, it was just political horse trading (or horse manure trading) to smooth the passage of the other parts of the Bill.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

It would also be inflicted upon Wales, Ulster and the Isle of Wight.

It would not affect Scotland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

Quite, clever arse clogs

[diddlydee]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Sent to Philip Dunne

For those interested, you can obtain contact details to include email address / postal address for your MP here http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

[oscar]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Wonder if it would affect MBNA?? They seem to think many UK laws do not apply as they are an "American" company.

[garlok]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Hi Guys and Girls.

I have just sent a long e-mail to my own MP who is a good constituency MP. It is constructed by quoting directly post#1 from this thread and quotes Paul's letter to his MP as posted on this thread. I have added a few personal notes of my own which include highlighting the fact that already our own ATE insurance on cases which to all intents and purposes were watertight and cast iron has been withdrawn and yes should our solicitors win and get predatory if this goes through then we will lose our home. So already this is happening and is very serious issue for all of us.

I see welshperson3's case very well and although this proposed legislation is designed to weed out "ambulance chasing" such as is advertised on daytime TV, the ramifications are enormous as Paul says.

However blanket signaures on a standard petition are not always the best way to go. For example in planning objections that go to enquiry (and I've helped campaign a few in my time) a petition that contains say 500,000 signatures counts as one objection, 500,000 individual letters become 500,000 objections. So decisions which go against us are in general of our own making. Thsiwas all explained to me in the 80's by a Hampshire County Councillor who for a time was my boss and he chaired the Planning Committee.

Best regards
Garlok

[Susie]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

I'm no good at this sort of thing, but would it be worth trying to get the wording changed if he absolutely insists on pushing this forwards so thet no win no fee cannot be used to instigate proceedings but can be used to defend or appeal if proceedings have been taken against a person?
That would stop the ambulance chasers but still allow those who are not using it as a way to take action to have the opportunity of having a chance of a good solicitor to defend them?

[diddlydee]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Just to update, reply received from my MP as follows:

Thank you for your emails of the 28th December and 5th January. I note the points that you have made about changes to "no win, no fee" arrangements, as outlined in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

An effective system of civil justice is on of the cornerstones of a civilised society. Without it businesses could not trade, individuals could not enforce their civil liberties and government could not be held to account. Nevertheless, access to justice for all parties depends on costs being proportionate and unnecessary cases being deterred.

In recent years, however, the system has become unbalanced, fuelled to a significant extent by the way that "no win, no fee" conditional fee agreements (CFAs) now work. They have played an important role in extending access to justice but they also enable claims to be pursued with no real risk to claimants and the threat of excessive costs to defendants.

It is for this reason that the Government launched a consultation last year on Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations for reforming no win, no fee arrangements. Following careful consideration of the consulation responses, the Government has decided to reform no win, no fee arrangements to stop the peverse situation in which fear of excess costs sometimes forces defendants to settle, even when they know they are in the right.

As you are aware, legislation has now been introduced to return the no win, no fee system to the first principles of which it was set up. In particular, the Govenment is ending the recoverability of success fee - which are a subsidy for the cases lawyers take on and lose - and insurance premiums.

The Government is also encouraging parties to make and accept reasonable offers, to protect the majority of personal injury claimants from paying a winning defendant's costs, and to allow claimants to recover the cost of expert reports in clinical negligence cases.

These reforms will ensure that meritorious claims are resolved at more proportionate cost, while unnecessary or avoidable claims will be deterred from progressing to court. This will help to end the unaccceptable compensation culture in this country which has closed much of our justice system to vast rafts of the ordinary public by legal costs out of all proportion to the dispute or the claim. Ordinary professional individuals will no longer have to be constantly concerned about the possible risk of litigation when they do perfectly ordinary things in the course of their daily lives.

Taken together with the Ministry of Justice's programme of reform to civil justice and sentencing, these proposals will move us towards a justice system which protects access to justice, encourages earlier and more efficient solving of civil disputes, and reduces costs and disproportionate risk.

I have written to the Minister on your behalf to ensure that he is aware of your views. As soon as I receive the reply I shall, or course, let you know.


Has anyone else receive a response, as yet, regarding their emails/letters? All of the above waffle only goes to explain why they are reforming (which we know) not what they might do for the cases which aren't related to "oops I tripped over your dog, pay me...."

[Paul.]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

that misses the point

The banks have unlimited resources as do debt purchasers like Link and Cabot et all

They dont give a monkeys bollocks if they throw away 20 cases or not per week cos they still profit from the 100s of default judgments they get.

The fact remains that the CPR and the CFAs etc are to provide a level playingfield. What kind of playing field is it when the one party has millions of pounds to throw at a case and the other is left risking bankruptcy to defend a claim that he has no ability to stop being pushed through the courts

shocking isnt it