Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Surely the chronology is all important
The client has the benefit of legal aid and I fail to understand why the client would give that up
If they abandoned their legal aid cover in favour of a CFA then basic advice to explain why the client did so, would be expected. The fact there appears to be none, is damning - the chronology of March 2013 is all important because of the changes in the recoverability of CFA premiums etc after that date

When the new provisions were introduced in 2013, claimant firms embarked on a rash of rushing through CFA agreements, especially for those with counsel. These are all dated March 2013 and all designed to take the benefit of the old CFA rules before the new system came into effect. And the claimant firms were in a rush to do so, because the MOJ gave only a few weeks notice of the changes before they were implemented -I suspect such a rush may have occurred in this case
This is only one of what I imagine will be a large number of cases argued on this point - and all such satellite litigation created by the short sighted 'experts' who rushed through these measures and no doubt got paid handsomely for their 'brilliance'

Your details

Cancel