A process of conditioning

Last week's ruling by the senior costs judge, Peter Hurst, that an after-the-event insurance policy used as part of a conditional fee agreement did not breach the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is being hailed by the claimant law firm involved as taking the tally to three-nil over insurers.Certainly Callery v Gray, Sarwar v Alam and now Tilby v Perfect Pizza have all resulted in judgments supporting the conditional fee regime.As Judge Hurst commented in Tilby, conditional fees and the insurance schemes which support them are in their infancy.

There have been growing pains and more lie in store, with Judge Hurst scheduled to hear a series of test cases involving the claims handlers, Claims Direct.But is painful litigation the only way of resolving and untangling the web of complex issues surrounding conditional fees? Confidential mediation last summer in advance of Callery appeared to come to naught.

But last December's Civil Justice Council-organised costs forum did reach consensus on the potential benefits of fixed costs.

So perhaps non-courtroom solutions exist.The complexity of conditional fees is taking its toll on both practitioners and clients.

As we reported on page 1 last week, many personal injury lawyers are finding the transition from legal aid to conditional fees too taxing.

For everybody's sake, these issues need to be resolved quickly and with as little heat as possible.