Government confirms ban on referral fees in personal injury cases
Referral fees are to be banned in personal injury cases as part of the Government's efforts to tackle the UK's so-called 'compensation culture', the Ministry of Justice has announced. The move, confirmed today (9 September), is part of the Government's efforts to drive down civil litigation costs in the UK. It comes alongside the civil litigation reforms put forward earlier this year by Lord Justice Jackson, which were included in the recent Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO).
September 08, 2011 at 07:04 PM
4 minute read
Referral fees are to be banned in personal injury cases as part of the Government's efforts to tackle the UK's so-called 'compensation culture', the Ministry of Justice has announced.
The move, confirmed today (9 September), is part of the Government's efforts to drive down civil litigation costs in the UK.
It comes alongside the civil litigation reforms put forward earlier this year by Lord Justice Jackson, which were included in the recent Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO).
Under current legislation, referral fees can be obtained when claims are passed between entities such as claims management companies, insurance companies and lawyers, or when a claim is made through a TV advert.
Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly (pictured) has argued that referral fees force insurance companies to raise premiums and public authorities to pass the additional costs onto the taxpayer, because the winning party can currently recover their costs under 'no win, no fee' arrangements.
In response, the Government's LASPO bill proposes the abolition of the recoverability of success fees and associated costs in 'no win, no fee' arrangements, and will now also include the abolition of referral fees.
Djanogly said: "The 'no-win, no-fee' system is pushing us into a compensation culture in which middle men make a tidy profit which the rest of us end up paying for through higher insurance premiums and higher prices.
"We will ban referral fees and we will go further. We have proposals before parliament to end the bizarre situation in which people have no stake in the legal costs their cases bring. This will make claimants think harder about whether to sue and give insurance companies and business generally an incentive to pass the savings onto customers through lower prices."
The news follows criticism from Jackson this week of the controversial Government cuts to legal aid included in the LASPO bill, which saw him warn that the reforms are "contrary to [my] recommendations".
The legal aid bill was unveiled by the Government in June this year in a bid to significantly reduce the £2.1bn annual legal aid budget by £350m, largely through a major withdrawal of civil legal aid.
Reaction to the ban
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson: "The society has been calling for just such a ban for two years and it is pleased that the arguments it has made to ministers have finally been listened to.
"The society is, however, disappointed that the ban will not be extended more widely – for example into the area of conveyancing. The Society believes this approach is short-sighted and does not recognise the clear potential for consumer detriment that exists in respect of one of the most important transactions most people make in their lives."
Bar council chairman Peter Lodder QC: "We are delighted that the Government has seen sense and is taking steps to ban all referral fees in personal injury cases. For a long time, and repeatedly, the Bar has called for referral fees to be outlawed, not just in personal injury cases, but in all cases, privately or publicly funded. They are bribes and add an unnecessary cost to litigation. They have no place in a fair and open justice system.
"We are also pleased to see the Government is acting on this issue in the public interest, which the Legal Services Board palpably failed to do when presented with the opportunity to earlier this year."
President of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, Seamus Smyth: "Like them or hate them, referral fees are a serious factor in the funding of litigation and litigation practices, and legislating them out of existence will present serious challenges to the draftsman.
"We wish him or her luck, and will be standing by to lend whatever assistance the LSLA can give in producing legislation which achieves the desired object without permitting or creating loopholes and satellite litigation, and more work – not for the first time – for litigators."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKirkland, Debevoise & Nishimura Advise On $8.2B Japanese Acquisition of Resolution Life
Covington Swipes Mishcon Insurance Disputes Head for New Practice Launch in London
3 minute readAsia Pacific Hires: Global Firms Kick Off Q4 with Flurry of Team Hires Across the Region
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Norton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over Ethnicity Score System
- 5KMPG Wants to Provide Legal Services in the US. Now All Eyes Are on Their Big Four Peers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250