Three stories for you this week on the assignment of CFAs, QOCS and inaccurate reporting.
Tension
Tension is building for Claimant PI firms on the issue of the assignment of (pre-LASPO) CFAs ahead of the Court of Appeal decision on Budana.
This week, from our Manchester Office, Manager, Christopher McClure published the third part of his blog series on the issue entitled: Another Twist in the Yellow Brick Road in which he unravels the decision in Azim v Tradewise Insurance Services.
As Chris says:
“The sword of Damocles is going to fall when the Court of Appeal hears Budana and, depending on which camp it falls, the financial repercussions for Claimant firms who have purchased large PI portfolios via the assignment of pre-LASPO CFAs could be devastating. Such firms would therefore do well to factor into their settlement calculations the real risk of zero costs recovery.”
Journalist Rachel Rothwell, writing in this week’s Law Society Gazette, echoes these concerns in a follow up article, asking “Will the Appeal Court Turn its Nose Up at the Sale of PI Cases?”
Watch this space.
Should have Gone to SpecSavers
This week, Kerry Underwood examined the case of Price v Egbert H Taylor and Company Ltd, Birmingham County Court, 16 June 2016 (unreported) Claim no. A04YM127: Appeal ref: BM5/007/. highlighting the consequences of an implied poorly drafted letter claiming a CFA was in place when no such funding arrangement had been made - in fact, there were no letters on file dealing with funding and there was no Client Care Letter. In this case, the Claimant had sought but was not allowed the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting on an adverse costs order.
From our Ilkley Office, Lee Coulthard comments:
“The costs order is against the Claimant, but it is the solicitor who will ultimately pick up the tab. This again shows the importance of accuracy when dealing with retainers, funding and notification. The consequences of a slip-up can be very expensive.”
Echoing Kerry’s own comments reinforcing
“the importance of not simply relying on case management systems and standard letters but rather considering each case as an individual case”.
For preliminary advice on funding and retainers please contact lee.coulthard@johnmhayes.co.uk or christopher.mcclure@johnmhayes.co.uk
Legal Aid Matters
We welcome any article that seeks to redress inaccurate reporting in our media and this week Lawyer Sarah Phillimore took on the Daily Mail and their report of comments by Munby J, tackling the increase in child care cases and the cost to the state which could o so easily be cut.
David Smith, Head of Legal Aid writing from our Newcastle office, comments:
“We echo the views raised [by Sarah Phillimore]. We have seen firsthand the impact that reductions to hourly rates and fixed fees has had on Solicitors' costs in care proceedings and it is hard to see how there is scope for similar cuts to be made again. A great deal of dedication, professionalism and care is invested into these cases by family solicitors and articles such as the one published by the Daily Mail are very misleading.”
Worth a read just to see the distance between truth and enthusiastic journalism - until next week..
For further comment or if you would like to discuss the contents of this round-up of #legal costs news, please contact: info@johnmhayes.co.uk or telephone 0370 300 3780.