Jackson reforms on funding—one year on [Archived]
Jackson reforms on funding—one year on [Archived]

The following Dispute Resolution guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Jackson reforms on funding—one year on [Archived]
  • What we have learnt—conditional fee agreements
  • Looking ahead—conditional fee agreements
  • What we have learnt—damages based agreements
  • The year ahead—damages based agreements
  • What we have learnt—third party funders
  • What we have learnt—ATE insurance

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is for historical purposes only.

1 April 2013 saw reforms to many aspects of litigation funding but what has this meant in practice? The implemented changes involve the sharing of risk through a number of different entities such as solicitors' firms, clients, litigation funders or insurers. The key aspect is how these different entities work together to provide parties with the ability to fund claims they wish to bring. In this Practice Note we consider each of the funding methods available and look at the impact of the changes especially in light of their introduction at the same time as cuts to legal aid; this simultaneous cut in legal aid had not been envisaged by Lord Jackson when producing his Final Costs Report. This Practice Note considers the impact of the funding reforms from a number of different perspectives.

What we have learnt—conditional fee agreements

The relevant provisions which brought in CFA changes were set out in:

  1. LASPO 2012, s 44 deals with CFAs, in particular s 44(6) which deals with the non recovery of success fees

  2. CFA Order 2013 as well as the saving order which sets out those areas where success fees are still recoverable ie insolvency matters, publication and privacy cases and mesothelioma claims

CFAs have continued since 1 April 2013 and