The government has commissioned a review of ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements, despite ­failing to publish the findings of its much-delayed consultation on the personal injury claims process – originally launched in April last year.

The academic study, announced last week, will examine whether such arrangements – mainly conditional fee agreements but also contingency fees in employment tribunals – are still an effective means of ensuring access to justice. It will focus on personal injury, employment and defamation/privacy cases.

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the review would not further delay publication of the government’s response to its claims process consultation.

The research will be conducted by three professors: Richard Moorhead, a solicitor and deputy head of Cardiff Law School, and non-lawyers Paul Fenn and Neil Rickman, whose research underpinned the predictable costs regime for road traffic cases. It will initially be a scoping study to identify the issues and how they can be researched.

Justice minister Bridget Prentice said: ‘"No win, no fee" arrangements are vital in helping to give the public a voice in courts. However, we are aware of concerns that they may not always be operating in the interests of access to justice.’

The profession’s response was cautious. Russell Wallman, the Law Society’s director of government relations, said: ‘"No win, no fee" agreements have made a major contribution to ensuring access to justice. The review needs to build on that success.’

Denise Kitchener, chief executive of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, questioned why a review is needed. ‘The system is not perfect but it has begun to settle down and we would prefer now to be focusing on other long-standing issues, such as fixed costs and fixed success fees,’ she said.