Contingency fees could operate effectively in England and Wales with or without cost shifting, a major report is expected to say this week.

However, the Gazette understands that the report, commissioned by the Civil Justice Council, warns of the risk that contingency fees may narrow access to justice, particularly for low-value cases, even if multi-party and higher-value cases might benefit.

Written by Senior Costs Judge Peter Hurst and Professor Richard Moorhead of Cardiff University, the report is likely to say that contingency fees without cost shifting would be a cleaner model, as it would wipe out costs assessments and most, if not all, satellite litigation around costs.

The report should also go some way to dispel fears prompted by the US experience.

The authors were asked to study how contingency fees operate in the US to inform the debate England and Wales may need to have in the event that other forms of funding litigation – most notably the conditional fee agreement (CFA) and after-the-event insurance model – fail.

They are thought to have found that contingency fees in the US are not generally extravagant. There was also no evidence that they provide improper disincentives to settle or that they necessarily promote high rates of litigation, frivolous claims or a litigation culture.

Levels of damages are reportedly much higher in the US than in England and Wales, although concrete evidence of this is hard to come by, as it is to prove the notion that damages claims have become inflated to reflect the contingency fee.

In any case, the report should say that, even if damages in England and Wales did rise because of contingency fees, it may still be less costly and more proportionate than the current CFA system.

The findings will be formally presented to the Civil Justice Council’s costs forum this week.