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

It does seem odd that under 'proportionality' the claimant, having won and been awarded £20,000 in damages, should have to pay £29,000 of the ATE premium, without which safety net she wouldn't (presumably) have brought the claim in the first place.

It would appear that the effect of 'proportionality' is to deter litigants of ordinary or modest means from ever pursuing damages claims.

Your details

Cancel