Report comment

Presumably the benefit to the Claimant would have been that they would not have exposed themselves to losing 25% of their (non-future loss) claim in paying IM a success fee, if they had to enter into a CFA at any time after 1 April 2013.

Missing out on a 10% uplift on general damages alone starts to look less of a problem when the alternative is to risk losing up to 25% of those same general damages (and 25% of past losses too). The monetary value of the success fee does of course also depend upon how much work is still to be done post CFA.

So as is often the case, it is not necessarily as clear cut as those with a vested interest would portray the situation.

Whilst I have very little time for IM generally, some of the comments made above do sound like bleating Defendant representatives and/or Daily Mail readers