Again, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I will find out and come back with an answer to his point.
There is a substantial body of opinion that 100 per cent recoverable success fees should not continue in defamation cases. Reducing the maximum success fee to 10 per cent through this order is an interim measure so that the specific concerns around high costs in defamation cases can be addressed urgently while the Government consider other options for longer-term reform. Of course, I am aware of the concerns raised by the Merits Committee.
Defamation-related proceedings form a discrete category of case where special considerations apply. They are relatively few in number and of relatively high cost compared with other types of civil proceedings. We regret that, despite several consultations by the department, an investigation by a parliamentary committee, and widespread public debate on this subject over the past five years, comprehensive data were not forthcoming. It is true that certain respondents provided some data against the 10 per cent proposal, but we believe that was partial and did not undermine the case for reform. Based on the available evidence, including that presented during the consultation on this order, it was judged that a maximum success fee of 10 per cent is appropriate. We believe it provides an effective interim solution to an urgent problem.
Regarding the questions that I have been asked—as to the 10 per cent, our consultation paper referred to the data presented to Sir Rupert. The 10 per cent proposal was made against the background of the sample used in the Jackson review. The sample was of 154 cases, none of which was won by the defendant. Although CFAs can be and are used by defendants, this rarely happens. The evidence suggests that few defendants win cases, and that increases the risks for defendant lawyers when taking on a defendant CFA.
On the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, success fees certainly can be taxed down on assessment, but the process of doing that is costly and extremely time-consuming. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, asked—
Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 25 March 2010.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c1156-7 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:46:47 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634500
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634500
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634500