The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that law firms can no longer charge massive success fees as part of Conditional Fee Agreements.
The saga started ten years ago, when the Daily Mirror published a picture of Naomi Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The sweary, foul-tempered supermodel instructed Schillings to sue the paper for breaching her privacy and, because she was too poor to afford the fees, the firm agreed to act under a CFA.
Mirror Group Newspapers was ordered to pay damages of just £3,500 - but also to pay Campbell's legal fees of £1,100,000. And £280,000 of that magnificent sum was a "success fee" for Schillings. Pretty much everybody - apart from Keith Schilling - thought this was manifestly unfair, and finally the ECHR has agreed. This week it ruled that whilst Campbell's privacy had indeed been breached, the success fee violated the right to freedom of expression and was in breach of European rules on human rights.
The ruling has been greeted with delight by publishers, journalists and bloggers everywhere. John Kampfner, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, said that it "removes one of the greatest barriers to free speech in the UK". Less chuffed will be the likes of Schillings and Carter Ruck, who will now have to find other ways to pay for their greasy trade.
However, is it really a good thing? Bear in mind Leigh Day could only take on a massively complex case on behalf of thousands of poisoned Africans because of the success fee it stood to make under the CFA. Ultimately the ruling seems likely to lead to the reform of the CFA system rather than its abandonment. But in the meantime premier league footballers may have to dip into their own pockets next time they want to stop someone writing about them playing away from home.
Tip Off ROF
The saga started ten years ago, when the Daily Mirror published a picture of Naomi Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The sweary, foul-tempered supermodel instructed Schillings to sue the paper for breaching her privacy and, because she was too poor to afford the fees, the firm agreed to act under a CFA.
Mirror Group Newspapers was ordered to pay damages of just £3,500 - but also to pay Campbell's legal fees of £1,100,000. And £280,000 of that magnificent sum was a "success fee" for Schillings. Pretty much everybody - apart from Keith Schilling - thought this was manifestly unfair, and finally the ECHR has agreed. This week it ruled that whilst Campbell's privacy had indeed been breached, the success fee violated the right to freedom of expression and was in breach of European rules on human rights.
 |
Naomi Campbell relaxing at home yesterday |
The ruling has been greeted with delight by publishers, journalists and bloggers everywhere. John Kampfner, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, said that it "removes one of the greatest barriers to free speech in the UK". Less chuffed will be the likes of Schillings and Carter Ruck, who will now have to find other ways to pay for their greasy trade.
However, is it really a good thing? Bear in mind Leigh Day could only take on a massively complex case on behalf of thousands of poisoned Africans because of the success fee it stood to make under the CFA. Ultimately the ruling seems likely to lead to the reform of the CFA system rather than its abandonment. But in the meantime premier league footballers may have to dip into their own pockets next time they want to stop someone writing about them playing away from home.