The government has agreed to consult media lawyers on its controversial proposals to cut success fees in libel actions.
In a House of Lords debate on a draft order that will reduce the success fees paid to lawyers who win defamation actions from 100% to 10% in conditional fee arrangements (CFAs), justice minister Lord Bach also agreed to review the change after 12 months.
The debate was triggered by a ‘motion of regret’ tabled by the former House of Commons speaker, Lord Martin, stating that the measure was being introduced without ‘sufficient time for consultation with all the professional and legal bodies concerned’.
Martin withdrew the motion following Bach’s assurances. He told the Gazette the agreement to meet lawyers would ‘even the balance’, given that the government had already met with the media in relation to the reforms.
Bach said the CFA order was an interim measure. He added: ‘It is not the solution to the problem of libel law, but it is the best thing to do at this stage.’
Steven Heffer, head of media at City firm Collyer Bristow, said the move to consult lawyers so late in the day was ‘cynical’ and questioned when it would happen, given the proximity of the general election and the government’s desire to implement the change before the election.
Heffer claimed the government was ‘being directed by the interests of the powerful media lobby in the run-up to the election’.
Government plans to cut lawyers’ success fees in defamation cases suffered a defeat on Wednesday in a House of Commons delegated legislation committee.
The proposals seek to limit the uplift that lawyers who take on libel cases under conditional fee arrangements can charge when they win from 100% to 10%.
The defeat means the change will now have to be debated by the House of Commons. A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said the government hoped that would happen next week.
Steven Heffer, head of media at City firm Collyer Bristow, said: ‘It would be a dangerous move and a stroke of political manoeuvring for Jack Straw to now try to push this through without a vote, in the face of such strong opposition, even from his own ranks.
‘The issue here is whether the government is willing to sacrifice access to justice for the ordinary citizen to look after the press and media. It is only the interests of those groups who are served by this proposal.’
No comments yet