28:
282:
277:
It was noted that there is no scheme that will perfectly provide access to justice in the wake of the withdrawal of legal aid from most civil cases yet the
European Court of Human Rights acknowledges that any such scheme may still be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights even where
272:
64. In our judgment, there is a powerful argument that the 1999 Act scheme is compatible with the
Convention for the simple reason that it is a general measure which was (i) justified by the need to widen access to justice to litigants following the withdrawal of legal aid; (ii) made following wide
318:
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
327:
It is salutary to note that two members of the
Supreme Court would have struck down a regime on which a significant section of the legal sector had relied and would have held that there was no legitimate expectation that that regime would continue to obtain. That would, in turn, have led to the
305:
agreed) gave a dissenting judgment that suggested the Access to
Justice Act 1999 was not compatible with the Convention because it discriminated between defendants and imposed heavy liabilities on some but not others.
194:
also more commonly known as 'no win no fee'. They eventually won the case and the stadium owner was ordered to pay 60% of the other sides costs. This included not only their base costs but also a success fee and an
278:
it operates harshly in certain individual cases. Overall the Access to
Justice Act 1999 provides a "rational and coherent scheme for providing access to justice" that is compatible with the Convention.
199:
premium. In this case the stadium owner did not challenge his liability to pay the base costs but argued that his liability for both the success fee and ATE premium would infringe his article 6 (
593:
328:
extreme repercussions discussed in my previous columns, effectively putting many firms in the very vulnerable position of relying on success in a class action against the government.
650:
845:
698:
981:
976:
971:
966:
961:
956:
951:
946:
941:
936:
931:
926:
921:
916:
911:
906:
888:
351:
156:
255:
814:
688:
200:
104:
1123:
667:
545:
643:
822:
391:
298:
828:
745:
482:
204:
636:
1133:
794:
755:
986:
720:
1128:
1007:
730:
268:
but rather whether it is a proportionate way of achieving the aims set out by Lord
Bingham. With this in mind Neuberger held that:
861:
834:
873:
684:
855:
750:
715:
659:
341:
168:
160:
38:
1002:
346:
273:
consultation and (iii) fell within the wide area of discretionary judgment of the legislature and rule-makers to make.
1024:
179:
The case is a follow up to
Coventry v Lawrence and Coventry v Lawrence (No. 2) and originally began as a claim in
1084:
286:
247:
184:
469:
442:
1012:
788:
740:
735:
618:
594:"How insurers' position is affected by yesterday's news on Coventry v Lawrence and even higher court fees"
529:
514:
500:
74:
1029:
1017:
867:
1034:
760:
265:
229:
164:
100:
568:
1075:
1046:
694:
196:
191:
264:
gave the leading judgment of the court and held that the present case is not about the flaws of the
725:
27:
1063:
623:
180:
332:
It has also been suggested that the case may be taken to the
European Court of Human Rights.
142:
356:
138:
323:
Others have considered the potential impact if the minority judgment had been successful:
8:
1089:
1039:
628:
416:
254:(2011) 53 EHRR 5 that the scheme had a number of flaws that made it incompatible with
486:
378:
1080:
572:
546:"COVENTRY V LAWRENCE, OR LESSONS FROM A NEAR MISS: A PRACTICAL VIEW FROM THE BAR"
446:
261:
1117:
225:
1051:
782:
1068:
1056:
392:"Case preview: Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor UKSC 2012/76"
302:
239:
To improve access to the courts for claimant with meritorious claims.
49:
Coventry and others (Respondents) v
Lawrence and another (Appellants)
1095:
281:
417:"Coventry v Lawrence: Supreme Court Rules for the Status Quo"
889:
List of judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
352:
2015 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
658:
285:
The case began because of the noise caused by a local
256:
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
205:
right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions
120:
Lords Neuberger, Mance, Dyson, Sumption and Carnwath
1115:
644:
540:
538:
314:Reacting to the judgment David Greene said:
419:. Horwich Farrelly Solicitors. 22 July 2015
651:
637:
203:) and/or article 1 of the first protocol (
26:
1124:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases
535:
440:
443:"Coventry: a costs calamity in waiting?"
280:
236:To contain the rising cost of legal aid.
1116:
1106:Justices shown in order of appointment
569:"To Coventry & back—a damp squib?"
566:
293:
632:
436:
434:
389:
190:The residents' lawyers acted under a
823:The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
441:Underwood, Kerry (23 January 2015).
163:concerning the compatibility of the
660:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
491:
342:European Convention on Human Rights
169:European Convention on Human Rights
161:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
39:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
13:
1134:Human rights in the United Kingdom
431:
347:Human rights in the United Kingdom
14:
1145:
1025:Judiciaries of the United Kingdom
1008:House of Lords judicial functions
829:The Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
612:
183:against the operators of a local
746:Lord Stephens of Creevyloughgare
215:
187:stadium by two local residents.
1129:2015 in United Kingdom case law
586:
560:
197:After-the-Event (ATE) insurance
1085:Secretary of State for Justice
567:Greene, David (30 July 2015).
520:
505:
475:
460:
409:
383:
369:
248:European Court of Human Rights
1:
862:The Baroness Hale of Richmond
835:The Baroness Hale of Richmond
596:. DWF Insurance. 23 July 2015
390:Hayes, Lucy (16 March 2015).
362:
1013:List of House of Lords cases
7:
1030:Courts of England and Wales
756:Lord Richards of Camberwell
548:. Littleton. 14 August 2015
335:
309:
210:
152:Coventry v Lawrence (No. 3)
58:9-10 & 12 February 2015
10:
1150:
1035:Courts of Northern Ireland
856:The Lord Hope of Craighead
685:The Lord Reed of Allermuir
527:Coventry v Lawrence (No 3)
512:Coventry v Lawrence (No 3)
498:Coventry v Lawrence (No 3)
266:Access to Justice Act 1999
242:To discourage weak claims.
232:has three principal aims:
230:Access to Justice Act 1999
165:Access to Justice Act 1999
103:scheme is compatible with
101:Access to Justice Act 1999
1104:
1076:Law officers of the Crown
1047:Law of the United Kingdom
995:
899:
883:
844:
813:
804:
773:
721:Lord Briggs of Westbourne
708:
677:
666:
192:conditional fee agreement
137:
132:
128:Lady Hale and Lord Clarke
124:
116:
111:
98:
93:
85:
80:
70:
62:
54:
44:
34:
25:
20:
174:
1064:Law of Northern Ireland
751:Lady Rose of Colmworth
731:Lord Hamblen of Kersey
619:Supreme Court judgment
330:
321:
290:
275:
624:Video of the judgment
325:
316:
284:
270:
246:In spite of this the
201:right to a fair trial
143:Right to a fair trial
357:Costs in English law
139:Costs in English law
1090:Middlesex Guildhall
376:Coventry v Lawrence
294:Dissenting judgment
21:Coventry v Lawrence
1040:Courts of Scotland
291:
1111:
1110:
895:
894:
769:
768:
148:
147:
1141:
811:
810:
716:Lord Lloyd-Jones
699:Deputy President
675:
674:
653:
646:
639:
630:
629:
606:
605:
603:
601:
590:
584:
583:
581:
579:
564:
558:
557:
555:
553:
542:
533:
524:
518:
509:
503:
495:
489:
487:(2011) 53 EHRR 5
479:
473:
464:
458:
457:
455:
453:
438:
429:
428:
426:
424:
413:
407:
406:
404:
402:
387:
381:
373:
71:Neutral citation
30:
18:
17:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1107:
1100:
1081:Lord Chancellor
991:
891:
879:
847:
840:
806:
800:
775:
765:
704:
669:
662:
657:
615:
610:
609:
599:
597:
592:
591:
587:
577:
575:
573:New Law Journal
565:
561:
551:
549:
544:
543:
536:
525:
521:
510:
506:
496:
492:
480:
476:
465:
461:
451:
449:
447:New Law Journal
439:
432:
422:
420:
415:
414:
410:
400:
398:
388:
384:
374:
370:
365:
338:
312:
296:
228:noted that the
218:
213:
177:
105:Article 6, ECHR
12:
11:
5:
1147:
1137:
1136:
1131:
1126:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1099:
1098:
1093:
1087:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1037:
1032:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1005:
999:
997:
993:
992:
990:
989:
984:
979:
974:
969:
964:
959:
954:
949:
944:
939:
934:
929:
924:
919:
914:
909:
903:
901:
897:
896:
893:
892:
887:
885:
881:
880:
878:
877:
871:
868:The Lord Mance
865:
859:
852:
850:
842:
841:
839:
838:
832:
826:
819:
817:
808:
802:
801:
799:
798:
792:
786:
779:
777:
771:
770:
767:
766:
764:
763:
758:
753:
748:
743:
738:
733:
728:
723:
718:
712:
710:
706:
705:
703:
702:
692:
681:
679:
672:
664:
663:
656:
655:
648:
641:
633:
627:
626:
621:
614:
613:External links
611:
608:
607:
585:
559:
534:
519:
504:
490:
474:
467:Callery v Gray
459:
430:
408:
382:
367:
366:
364:
361:
360:
359:
354:
349:
344:
337:
334:
311:
308:
295:
292:
262:Lord Neuberger
244:
243:
240:
237:
222:Callery v Gray
217:
214:
212:
209:
176:
173:
146:
145:
135:
134:
130:
129:
126:
122:
121:
118:
114:
113:
109:
108:
96:
95:
91:
90:
87:
83:
82:
78:
77:
72:
68:
67:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1146:
1135:
1132:
1130:
1127:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1119:
1103:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1004:
1001:
1000:
998:
994:
988:
985:
983:
980:
978:
975:
973:
970:
968:
965:
963:
960:
958:
955:
953:
950:
948:
945:
943:
940:
938:
935:
933:
930:
928:
925:
923:
920:
918:
915:
913:
910:
908:
905:
904:
902:
898:
890:
886:
882:
875:
872:
869:
866:
863:
860:
857:
854:
853:
851:
849:
843:
836:
833:
830:
827:
824:
821:
820:
818:
816:
812:
809:
803:
796:
793:
790:
787:
784:
781:
780:
778:
772:
762:
759:
757:
754:
752:
749:
747:
744:
742:
739:
737:
734:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
717:
714:
713:
711:
707:
700:
696:
693:
690:
686:
683:
682:
680:
676:
673:
671:
665:
661:
654:
649:
647:
642:
640:
635:
634:
631:
625:
622:
620:
617:
616:
595:
589:
574:
570:
563:
547:
541:
539:
531:
528:
523:
516:
513:
508:
502:
499:
494:
488:
485:
484:
478:
471:
468:
463:
448:
444:
437:
435:
418:
412:
397:
393:
386:
380:
377:
372:
368:
358:
355:
353:
350:
348:
345:
343:
340:
339:
333:
329:
324:
320:
315:
307:
304:
300:
288:
283:
279:
274:
269:
267:
263:
259:
257:
253:
249:
241:
238:
235:
234:
233:
231:
227:
223:
216:Supreme Court
208:
206:
202:
198:
193:
188:
186:
182:
172:
170:
166:
162:
158:
157:2015 judgment
154:
153:
144:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
112:Case opinions
110:
106:
102:
97:
92:
88:
86:Prior history
84:
79:
76:
73:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
1003:Constitution
797:(since 2020)
789:Mark Ormerod
741:Lord Burrows
736:Lord Leggatt
598:. Retrieved
588:
576:. Retrieved
562:
550:. Retrieved
526:
522:
511:
507:
497:
493:
483:MGN Ltd v UK
481:
477:
466:
462:
450:. Retrieved
421:. Retrieved
411:
399:. Retrieved
395:
385:
375:
371:
331:
326:
322:
317:
313:
297:
276:
271:
260:
252:MGN Ltd v UK
251:
245:
226:Lord Bingham
221:
219:
189:
178:
151:
150:
149:
81:Case history
66:22 July 2015
48:
15:
1052:English law
876:(2018–2020)
870:(2017–2018)
864:(2013–2017)
858:(2009–2013)
837:(2017–2020)
831:(2012–2017)
825:(2009–2012)
791:(2015–2020)
785:(2009–2015)
761:Lady Simler
319:damp squib.
301:(with whom
299:Lord Clarke
133:Area of law
89:EWCA Civ 26
1118:Categories
1092:(location)
783:Jenny Rowe
726:Lord Sales
695:Lord Hodge
678:Leadership
363:References
207:) rights.
1069:Scots law
1057:Welsh law
1018:Law Lords
900:Judgments
874:Lord Reed
848:President
815:President
795:Vicky Fox
776:Executive
689:President
600:21 August
578:21 August
552:21 August
452:21 August
423:21 August
401:21 August
396:UKSC blog
303:Lady Hale
167:with the
1096:UKSCblog
807:justices
670:justices
336:See also
310:Reaction
289:stadium.
287:speedway
250:held in
224:UKHL 28
211:Judgment
185:speedway
181:nuisance
117:Majority
996:Related
668:Current
530:UKSC 50
515:UKSC 50
501:UKSC 50
470:UKHL 28
379:UKSC 13
159:of the
155:was a
125:Dissent
94:Holding
75:UKSC 50
63:Decided
884:Judges
846:Deputy
805:Former
709:Judges
55:Argued
774:Chief
175:Facts
35:Court
1083:and
987:List
982:2024
977:2023
972:2022
967:2021
962:2020
957:2019
952:2018
947:2017
942:2016
937:2015
932:2014
927:2013
922:2012
917:2011
912:2010
907:2009
602:2015
580:2015
554:2015
454:2015
425:2015
403:2015
99:The
220:In
1120::
571:.
537:^
532:,
517:,
472:,
445:.
433:^
394:.
258:.
171:.
141:;
701:)
697:(
691:)
687:(
652:e
645:t
638:v
604:.
582:.
556:.
456:.
427:.
405:.
107:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
