I strongly suspect that it will make no difference at all, because the lawyers are understandably anxious to do the work and they will continue to do the work by and large in those cases where they think that they have good prospects of success on a conditional fee basis. If the case is interesting, they may, as many lawyers do, be prepared to do it on a no-fee basis, as the noble and learned Lord knows.
The other point that has been made with considerable force is: why 10 per cent? Why not 20 per cent or 50 per cent? As I understand it, the 10 per cent reflects a judgment that only a small uplift is appropriate in the context of freedom of expression, for all the reasons that I have given. I, for my part, am comforted by the Government’s assurance at paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the conditional fee agreements order, which has been repeated by the Minister, that the order will be reviewed after 12 months in the light of experience. For those reasons, with regret, I cannot support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Martin. I support the Government.
Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Pannick
(Crossbench)
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 c1173 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:46:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634521
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634521
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634521