Report comment

"McCracken said that the system meant that claimants' solicitors could take on cases with only a one in three chance of winning, on the basis that one win would cover the costs of the two losses. "

Well, that doesn't work on a number of grounds. Firstly, I'm not aware of judges allowing a 200% uplift. Secondly, so what? Many litigants push hopeless cases. Thirdly, if a case has a 33% chance of success, then, logically, it should lose. A judge would assess that chance and say "it's not reached the threshold". Fourthly, it plainly does not result in an unfair trial. The costs may be punitive, but it's no harsher than fighting a legally-aided opponent and not getting your costs back.

And, again logically, if you lose and pay 3x the costs, then you should have sussed you were on to a loser and settled.