Judge raps 'no win, no fee' lawyers in injury case

A judge has criticised a firm of solicitors operating under a no win, no fee agreement who claimed more than £13,000 for work which he said should have cost £3,000.

Express Solicitors represented the family of a four-year-old boy, who suffered a minor injury when he tripped on uneven paving in a pub garden in Witney, Oxfordshire.

District Judge Richard Lumb said he suspected that some firms were claiming higher costs in order to earn a maximum percentage of any damages awarded.

The personal injury legal firm, based in Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, said the judge "failed to give appreciation to the level of clear written and oral explanation of the fees at the beginning of the claim" and was advising its client to appeal.

The boy suffered "a nasty gash to his forehead" when he fell at The Rowing Machine pub in Witney in 2022, Oxford County Court heard.

Subsequently, his mother agreed a £10,000 settlement with pub owners Greene King, who admitted liability immediately.

The judge, who previously accused the same solicitors of "costs padding" in a different case, said their £13,316 costs were unreasonable.

In his judgment, he said there had been a "disturbing trend amongst some solicitors" to inflate rates and billable hours.

He added: "This inevitably draws suspicion that this practice is deliberately designed to ensure that... the 25% cap on deduction from the damages will always be reached.

"Clients will seldom, if ever, complain as they have been conditioned by the solicitors to anticipate that the deduction will be 25% of the damages."

The deduction - the amount earned by the solicitors - is calculated from the solicitors' claimed costs and a percentage success fee, which is lower in less risky cases.

Express Solicitors claimed a success fee percentage of 100%, which the judge reduced to 11%, given the high chance of winning the case.

He also disallowed the firm's £1,120 After The Event insurance premium, which clients using no win, no fee agreements can be asked to pay to insure against an adverse costs order by the court.

In a postscript, Judge Lumb warned that firms which misbehave may be investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

However, Express Solicitors said the judge "failed to give any weight to admission being withdrawn" in the case.

Chief executive Daniel Slade added: "[He] failed to consider risks in such type of case in proving negligence and failed to give any weights to risks associated with quantum.

"He also drew far too heavily on what the applicant could remember of the documents many months thereafter and swayed beyond his remit into commercial matters such as 'some firms choose to'.

"[He] inadvertently failed to appreciate the restriction of choice his judgment seeks to impose on children, worsening their access to justice as compared with adults."

You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X, or Instagram.