This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/22/supreme-court-speedway-legal-bill-suffolk
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Supreme court orders speedway owner to cover opponents' £500k legal bill | |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Motorsport track operators in Suffolk who were ordered to pay a couple living in a neighbouring bungalow £20,000 in damages because of the noise must now pay almost £500,000 in legal costs because the case was run on a no-win-no-fee basis, the supreme court has ruled. | |
| David Coventry and Moto-Land UK Ltd, who run the Mildenhall Stadium and a neighbouring speedway track, appealed against the costs on the basis that having to pay bonuses to their opponents’ lawyers infringed their right to a fair trial. They also said the costs were disproportionate. But the court ruled on Wednesday in favour of the system that losing parties in civil cases must pay bonuses to opponents’ lawyers if they were hired on so-called conditional fee agreements. | David Coventry and Moto-Land UK Ltd, who run the Mildenhall Stadium and a neighbouring speedway track, appealed against the costs on the basis that having to pay bonuses to their opponents’ lawyers infringed their right to a fair trial. They also said the costs were disproportionate. But the court ruled on Wednesday in favour of the system that losing parties in civil cases must pay bonuses to opponents’ lawyers if they were hired on so-called conditional fee agreements. |
| The supreme court said the system may be flawed but given the withdrawal of legal aid for most civil cases it at least enabled wide public access to civil litigation. | The supreme court said the system may be flawed but given the withdrawal of legal aid for most civil cases it at least enabled wide public access to civil litigation. |
| Suffolk fireman Raymond Shields and his partner Katherine Lawrence lived 800 metres from the stadium and speedway track which are used for banger and stock car racing. After their legal battle went through three courts the couple successfully argued for damages because the noise constituted a “nuisance” and brought down the value of their bungalow. On top of £20,000 in damages, the track operators were ordered to pay 60% of the couple’s legal costs, which amounted to £184,585. But because the couple had hired their lawyers on a no-win-no-fee basis, the respondents also were ordered to cover a further £312,000 in bonus and insurance payments owed to the successful lawyers. | |
| Richard Buxton, the lawyer representing Shields and Lawrence, said his clients were “pleased with the result”. | Richard Buxton, the lawyer representing Shields and Lawrence, said his clients were “pleased with the result”. |
| Jo Pooley, lawyer for Coventry and Moto-Land UK, said the company had gone into liquidation because of the extent of the liabilities caused by the legal fees. “They are not in a position to pay,” she said. | Jo Pooley, lawyer for Coventry and Moto-Land UK, said the company had gone into liquidation because of the extent of the liabilities caused by the legal fees. “They are not in a position to pay,” she said. |
| The controversial system of demanding losing parties pay bonuses to no-win-no-fee lawyers is set out in the Access to Justice Act 1999, in an effort to ensure legal proceedings do not drain the taxpayer-funded legal aid kitty. | The controversial system of demanding losing parties pay bonuses to no-win-no-fee lawyers is set out in the Access to Justice Act 1999, in an effort to ensure legal proceedings do not drain the taxpayer-funded legal aid kitty. |
| Judges ruled that the system “has the legitimate aim of the widest possible public access to legal services for civil litigation funded by the private sector. There is no perfect solution to the problem of how best to enhance access to justice following the withdrawal of legal aid for most civil cases”. | Judges ruled that the system “has the legitimate aim of the widest possible public access to legal services for civil litigation funded by the private sector. There is no perfect solution to the problem of how best to enhance access to justice following the withdrawal of legal aid for most civil cases”. |
| Five judges ruled that the system does not infringe European human rights law. Two others, Lady Hale, the deputy president of the supreme court, and Lord Clarke, dissented. | Five judges ruled that the system does not infringe European human rights law. Two others, Lady Hale, the deputy president of the supreme court, and Lord Clarke, dissented. |
| The law was changed in 2013 to rule that bonus and insurance payments can no longer be reclaimed in new cases, although the system remains for people suing publications for defamation and breaches of privacy. | The law was changed in 2013 to rule that bonus and insurance payments can no longer be reclaimed in new cases, although the system remains for people suing publications for defamation and breaches of privacy. |
| In 2011, a case taken to the European court of human rights by Mirror Group Newspapers, who claimed the system breached the right to freedom of speech, was upheld. The Mirror had had to pay the supermodel Naomi Campbell £1m in costs, inflated by no-win-no-fee success payments, after she successfully sued for invasion of privacy. | In 2011, a case taken to the European court of human rights by Mirror Group Newspapers, who claimed the system breached the right to freedom of speech, was upheld. The Mirror had had to pay the supermodel Naomi Campbell £1m in costs, inflated by no-win-no-fee success payments, after she successfully sued for invasion of privacy. |
| Strasbourg judges ruled that, among other things, the system lacked any incentive for claimants to control costs and that there was a “chilling effect” which drove parties to settle out of court for fear of huge legal bills, even if there was a good chance of defence. | Strasbourg judges ruled that, among other things, the system lacked any incentive for claimants to control costs and that there was a “chilling effect” which drove parties to settle out of court for fear of huge legal bills, even if there was a good chance of defence. |
| A leading media lawyer, Gavin Millar QC, who intervened in the speedway track case, said the fact that two of the seven supreme court judges dissented from the judgement was significant. | A leading media lawyer, Gavin Millar QC, who intervened in the speedway track case, said the fact that two of the seven supreme court judges dissented from the judgement was significant. |
| Millar said: “This case shows there is unease among the judges about this scheme continuing but the government still allows the regime to apply to publishers where it has a chilling effect, especially on smaller publishers who are not willing to take the risk of running legally risky copy or challenging in the courts complaints bought under conditional fee agreements.” | Millar said: “This case shows there is unease among the judges about this scheme continuing but the government still allows the regime to apply to publishers where it has a chilling effect, especially on smaller publishers who are not willing to take the risk of running legally risky copy or challenging in the courts complaints bought under conditional fee agreements.” |