1. Skip to Menu
  2. Skip to Content
  3. Skip to Footer>
Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here

CFA's found to breach article 10 (ECHR)

PDF Print E-mail

Written by Ivan Mifsud Friday, 21 January 2011 12:13 Last Updated on Friday, 21 January 2011 12:40

18 January 2011, Strasbourg. Ref 39401/04. The Court ruled that provisions in English procedural law, allowing solicitors and barristers  to agree on charging a ‘success fee’ often amounting to close to 100% of expenses, to amount to a breach of article 10 (right to freedom of expression).

Applicant in this case is a company that owns a particular newspaper. It was sued before the domestic courts, by no other than top model Naomi Campbell, for breach of privacy, following certain reports carried and photographs published. Ms Campbell’s court actions proved successful, and the newspaper had to, amongst other things, pay costs. These costs however included the so-called ‘success fee’ often referred to as CFAs (Conditional Fee Agreement), running into hundreds of thousands of British Pounds.  Applicant claimed that the risk of incurring such high costs amounted to an interference of its freedom of expression; though these fees were prescribed by law, they did not pursue a legitimate aim and were not necessary in a democratic society.  Incurring 3500 British Pounds as damages, but in excess of one million Pounds in costs was disproportionate.


A number of English NGO’s made submissions, in appliant’s favour, claiming that such high costs of defamation cases had a ‘chilling efect’ on NGOs with small budgets, when NGOs were particularly vulnerable to such actions because of the nature of their work.


The Court agreed, citing amongst other things the Jackson Review by Jackson LJ  (commissioned by the English Ministry of Justice) that also expressed concern on the ‘blackmail’ or ‘chilling’ effects of such fees and costs.  Lord Jackson pointed out that whereas such schemes were initially intended to encourage solicitors and barristers to take up cases for less wealthy people, thus allowing such people access to justice, in practice had not served this purposes, and led to legal practitioners ‘cherry picking’ winning cases and conducting them on CFA’s (para. 209 et seq).


The question of whether or not to grant redress under article 41, was put off for later judgement.

 To access the text of the judgement click here

 

Newsflash

The StateCareAndMore web site can be your next platform to reach your clients, ask our staff for available options on how you can place an advert on our web site.