Relief post-Coventry is tempered by injustice on other fronts, says David Greene
Whether you are happy or disappointed at the result in Coventry and Others v Lawrence and another [2015] UKSC 50, [2015] All ER (D) 234 (Jul) will depend on which side of the costs issue dealt with by the court you sit. I had rather mixed feelings. As a claimant lawyer I welcomed the finding but I felt disappointed that after all this time and angst the court said “no change”, notwithstanding that it was the Supreme Court that seemed to start this hare running. The judgment is fascinating reading but the whole process has been somewhat of a damp squib. Perhaps predictably so.
For the appellants it looked good. The European Court of Human Rights had already opined on the conditional fee agreement legislation under Art 10 (freedom of speech). Lord Neuberger seemed, inititally, to breathe life into the concept that recovery of success fees and after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums may be an unreasonable fetter on access to the court and thus in breach of Art 6, or at the very least
