Conditional fees intended to allow access to justice

As the battle for clarification of this form of funding rages, defendants have taken a small knock-back. In Worth v McKenna the defendant argued that it was necessary for them to see the conditional fee agreement (CFA) during cost assessment to ascertain whether the indemnity principle had been adhered to. But District Judge Wright said it was only necessary for the court to see the agreement and this to ascertain whether it complied with the CFA regulations. Circuit Judge David Marshall Evans, suggesting that disclosure demands were often a “fishing expedition”, ruled that the CFA should not be disclosed unless there was evidence of non-compliance and that questions of indemnity could be checked by examining the certificate of the bill. Leave for appeal was granted to allow definitive resolution of the issues.