NB See the appeal on this case discussed here
This blog has followed those cases where judges have decided whether it was reasonable for claimants to switch from legal aid to public funding. Perhaps more to the point, the issue is whether the defendant should thereafter pay the additional liability and the the insurance premium. For the sake of completeness it is worth noting that The Law Society Gazette today reports another case.
In Yesil -v- Doncaster NHS Trust (a decision by District Judge Besford on the 16th October 2016) it was held that the switch from legal aid to a CFA was not justified. The judge is reported as saying
“In my judgement it is inconceivable that a client would not consider the option of an additional 10% uplift on general damages a material factor. The omission to raise this factor, even if the claimant immediately rejected it, seriously calls into question the adequacy of the advice given. Irwin Mitchell would appear to have been not so much ‘leaning’ one way, as giving advice tailored to a decision they had already made. Where one of two or more options available to a client is more financially beneficial to the solicitor, the need for transparency becomes ever greater.”
Also see the discussion of the case (and these issues generally) at Claimant solicitors funding advice increases their costs at the expense of clients’ damages.
- Costs, CFAs, addition liability and going outside public funding 1: Hyde -v- Milton Keynes.
- Costs, CFAS, additional liabilities and going outside public funding 2: Surrey -v- Barnet & Chase
- Moving from legal aid to CFAS: recent developments
- Moving from legal aid to CFAS: the judgments