A disability charity has mounted a High Court challenge to oppose government plans to reform ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements.

The Spinal Injuries Association (SIA) says ministers have failed to consider properly the impact its proposals will have on the most vulnerable people in society.

Reforms include plans to cap the ‘success fees’ claimant lawyers can claim when they take on a case on a no win, no fee basis, and to make claimants pay these fees out of their damages rather than recovering them from the losing defendant.

The SIA is being supported in its action by other victims groups including brain injury charity Headway and Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA).

Dan Burden, head of public affairs for the SIA, said: ‘Access to justice should be a fundamental right to protect the vulnerable and government must consider it as one of its highest priorities.

‘For a great many people whose lives have been devastated through a catastrophic event such as a spinal cord injury, the no win, no fee system has opened up the opportunity, irrespective of means, to submit a legitimate claim.’

Lawyers for the charity claim the government failed to carry out proper assessments of how the proposals would affect disabled people.

They argue the time between the consultation closing and Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke issuing a response in the House of Commons was insufficient.

The government maintains its reforms will prevent frivolous and fraudulent claims and will ease the mounting burden of insurance costs for the general public.

But the Consumer Justice Alliance, a collection of charities, law firms and insurers, said Clarke had not listened following the second reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill today, which includes civil litigation reform.

CJA chairman Nigel Muers-Raby said: ‘We have seen thousands of responses from politicians, highly respected representatives from the judiciary, victims, and charities all highlighting their concerns and warnings about the impact these reforms could have but he has simply ignored them.’