Pre-LASPO switches from legal aid to CFAs “not reasonable”, Court of Appeal rules

National law firm Irwin Mitchell did not act reasonably in switching clients from legal aid to conditional fee agreements (CFAs) ahead of the introduction of LASPO, the Court of Appeal ruled last week.

NHS Resolution said the decision to overturn the judgment of Mr Justice Foskett saved it £270,000 in the three conjoined cases before the court and potentially millions more in other cases where clients were switched.

The three cases – Kai Surrey, AH and Yesil – all involved medical negligence victims who were switched from legal aid to CFAs shortly before 1 April 2013.

At first instance, Irwin Mitchell lost the right to recover the success fees and insurance premiums because it was held that they failed to advise on the 10% Simmons v Castle uplift before switching clients from legal aid.

However, on appeal, Foskett J, sitting with the Senior Costs Judge Master Gordon-Saker as assessor, overturned these decisions, ruling that in each case staying on legal aid and claiming the 10% would only have achieved a marginal gain.

Giving the unanimous ruling of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Lewison said “the real issue is not the advice as such, but the reasons why the receiving party made the choice that he did”.

He said: “The bottom line is that in each of the three cases the advice given to the client had exaggerated (and in two cases misrepresented) the disadvantages of remaining with legal aid funding; and had omitted entirely any mention of the certain disadvantage of entering into a CFA.

“Moreover, one of the advantages of entering into the CFA was Irwin Mitchell’s own prospective entitlement to a substantial success fee. In those circumstances, I consider that DJ Besford [in Yesil] was correct in saying: ‘Where one of two or more options available to a client is more financially beneficial to the solicitor, the need for transparency becomes ever greater.’”

He agreed with Foskett J that the analogy all three costs judges made to the 2016 Supreme Court ruling over informed consent to medical treatment, Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, was a “distraction”.

Foskett J criticised the weight the costs judges gave to the analogy. Lewison LJ said: “Even if that were a fair criticism (and I do not think that it is), it does not amount to saying either that the costs judges took into account an irrelevant consideration; nor that their decisions on the facts were outside the ambit of reasonable decisions open on the facts of the three cases.

“In questions involving the exercise of discretion, questions of weight are questions for the primary decision maker: not for an appeal court… I do not consider that the judge applied the right test to his appellate role.”

Foskett J was not entitled to interfere with the evaluative judgment of the three costs judges, the court found.

Lewison LJ found other faults in the High Court ruling. He said Foskett J was wrong to say that the 10% point was determinative in Yesil and so “because he mischaracterised those conclusions, he gave no reasons for disagreeing with them”.

He added: “In my judgment, DJ Besford’s conclusions were fully justified on the evidence that he had; and I consider that the judge was wrong to reverse him.”

The 10% uplift was determinative in the other two cases, but the Court of Appeal said Foskett J got the appeal test wrong.

“The judge’s approach casts on the paying party the burden of showing that the decision would have been different. By contrast, the costs judges’ approach casts on the receiving party the burden of showing that the decision would have been the same.

“Since not only does the burden of proof rest on the receiving party, but also any doubt is to be resolved in favour of the paying party, I consider that the costs judges’ approach was right, and the judge’s was wrong.”

NHS Resolution chief executive Helen Vernon said: “We welcome the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case which shows how important it is for claimants to be properly informed when it comes to their legal costs.

“Having detected this issue and taken the decision to challenge it through the higher courts, we were able to save significant sums for the NHS while ensuring that claimants receive the compensation they are entitled to.”

In a statement, Irwin Mitchell said: “Over five years ago, we advised a small proportion of our legally aided clients who had medical negligence claims to switch from legal aid to a [CFA] ahead of unprecedented law reforms…

“This allowed our clients to pursue their cases to a successful conclusion unfettered by any (existing or future) restrictions around legal aid and without having to make any contribution to legal costs (as the [CFAs] pre-dated the change in the law) and many have since recovered many millions of pounds in compensation to provide for their long-term needs.

“The Court of Appeal is critical of our advice in three individual cases, but we remain of the view that the switch was reasonable and in the best interests of those clients as the High Court agreed back in 2016.

“We are considering our position on appeal.”

Benjamin Williams QC and Robert Marven QC (instructed By Irwin Mitchell) represented the claimants/respondents, with Alexander Hutton QC (instructed By Acumension) for the appellants/defendants.



Exclusive Access

Members only article

This article is exclusively for ACL members. Please log in to proceed, or click the button below to fill out an application from and become a part of our professional community.

Post details

Post type
Costs News
Published date
21 Mar 2018

Fill this form out to be notified when booking goes live.

Your Full Name
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.