Funding and costs

Funding and costs

Funding

The usual mechanisms for funding a clinical negligence claim are:

•
conditional fee agreement
•
before the event (BTE) insurance
•
damages-based agreement
•
legal aid/public funding

Outside these criteria, ‘exceptional case’ funding may be available under section 10(2) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012). Decisions are made by the Legal Aid Authority, applying the Lord Chancellor’s Exceptional Funding Guidance (Non-Inquests).

See further Practice Note: Clinical negligence claims—funding and costs.

Conditional fee agreements

The now-traditional ‘no win, no fee’ arrangement is subject to amended rules which came into effect on 1 April 2013. Under a conditional fee agreement (CFA), the solicitor is not paid if the case is lost. In the event of success, they receive as payment their base fees plus a success fee calculated at a proportion of those base fees. Base costs are generally sought to be recovered from the opponent while the success fee is payable by the client. The rules on CFAs in clinical negligence claims are, with one exception, broadly the same as apply in personal injury claims.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

MoJ announces changes to medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has issued a stakeholder alert confirming significant changes to medical reporting activities for road traffic accident claims, set to take effect from 6 April 2025. These changes include revised Medical Reporting Organisation Qualifying Criteria and Direct Medical Expert Rules, a modified MedCo 'offer' exclusively for represented claimants, and an approximate 25% increase to the MedCo Fixed Cost Medical Reports regime. Tracked change versions of the revised MRO QC and DME Rules have been made available, with further updates to the MedCo Qualifying Criteria Guidance Document and related audit guides expected to follow shortly. These modifications stem from the Government's response to the 'Revisions to the Medical Reporting Process for Road Traffic Accident Claims' consultation published in December 2024.

The personal injury discount rate—a review

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: At the tail end of 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, announced the results of her five-month long review of the discount rate, first announced in July 2024. One month on from the new +0.5% discount rate coming into force, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) reviews the impact on cases of the new discount rate, the reaction from those representing claimants and defendants, and the implications of the change for legal practitioners.

Representative actions in copyright infringement claims (Getty Images v Stability AI)

IP analysis: This judgment considers CPR Part 19 representative actions in the context of copyright infringement claims, particularly those that involve alleged infringement of a very large number of works owned by different entities. The court decided that one Claimant, Thomas M Barwick Inc (Barwick), could not act as a representative for a class of individuals (who had licensed copyright works on similar terms to Getty, with the other claimants being members of the Getty corporate group) due to an unclear class definition and issues with how the claim would be case managed. The judgment emphasises the necessity of a clear, outcome-independent class definition and a common interest among class members under CPR 19.8. The court also dismissed an informal application under CPR 19.3 to proceed without joinder of all interested parties, stating there was insufficient evidence to address whether there was potential prejudice to the defendants, though it did not shut out a further application under CPR 19.3 supported by appropriate evidence, and such an application was not precluded by the finding under CPR 19.8. Written by Luke Maunder, associate Director at Osborne Clarke LLP.

Law Centre’s reliance on specialist barrister’s advice endorsed in claim where claimant failed to prove negligence against her legal advisers (Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court dismissed a professional negligence claim against Mary Ward Legal Centre and a barrister, finding no proof of negligence and endorsing the centre's reliance on specialist advice. The court emphasised that advisers acted appropriately given available information, and the claim was time-barred. This judgment reinforces the importance of clients providing and advisers probing for all relevant evidence; and it validates the practice of non-specialists seeking advice from expert counsel. It also underscores the challenges faced by legal aid providers in complex cases and the court's recognition of their crucial role in assisting vulnerable clients. Practical implications written by the Dispute Resolution team at LexisNexis.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News