Report comment

To give some balance, there have also been decisions confirming that the decision to switch from Legal Aid to a CFA was reasonable e.g. Hyde v MIlton Keynes Hospital NHS FT (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2015/B17.html).

Anyone working with the LSC/LAA over the last few years on Clin Neg cases will know that their approach has become increasingly restrictive, particularly with regard to expert hourly rates but there's plenty of other examples. There were plenty of arguments for and against a switch, and I think it is unfair to paint this as obviously and only explainable by firms trying to maximise costs. Whether maximising costs was actually what was behind the switch is another matter; lack of advice on all those arguments for and against doesn't help it look good.

As a minor side point - even after 3 years, judges are still getting the 10% bit wrong e.g. Summers v Bundy recently in CofA, where the trial judge had refused to apply the 10% as claimant had been in receipt of LA funding.