No win, no fee conditional fee arrangements
Kenneth Clarke MP, the new Justice Secretary is to reform no win, no fee conditional fee arrangements. An interesting article is published by epolitix.com: Article on 29/03/11 in www.epolitix.com entitled "Clarke to reform "no win no fee" cases" (Click here)
I have recently been approaching law firms for a CFA to do my case which is stayed in the Royal Courts of Justice, London. The judge is insisting that I have a litigant friend and the case has been stayed for 4 years now with the Official Solicitor for England & Wales being requested twice by the judge to act on my behalf, both times her [Samson-Tandoh] refusing to do so allegedly latterly because of the Woolf Reforms.
Ken Clarke MP has made several recommendations : "Clarke said he will seek legislation to restore the fundamental values of civil justice and attacked a system where legal costs often outstrip compensation payments. He called the current situation "unparalled in any other country". "We plan to end the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums, which drive legal costs, award claimants a 10 per cent uplift in general damages where they have suffered loss, and then ensure that they take an interest in controlling the bills being run up on their behalf by expecting them to pay their own lawyer's success fee," he said. Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said it is difficult to disagree with reforming civil justice, a process that the last Labour government began. He said that while he accepts the costs of civil cases should be reformed, all people should have recourse to the civil courts. He said that the poor already have trouble finding a lawyer to act on their behalf and these changes may exacerbate that situation. "There is a fear that these plans go so far in trying to keep down costs that some claimants with meritorious cases would find it difficult, if not impossible, to find a lawyer to take on their case," he said.
...
There will be a consultation on other plans to improve how court judgments are enforced, so that people receive what it is judged they are owed, as well as introducing automatic referral to mediation in small claims cases, or mediation awareness sessions in higher-value cases, to help people avoid court where possible. Clarke wants to raise the small claims limit and to change the county court jurisdiction so that the High Court is used for bigger and more complex claims only".
What Ken Clarke MP has failed to encapsulate is that people can do their cases themselves as a litigant in person. I know that I prefer that opportunity. It keeps costs down to court costs only which are realistic. Given a judge of an Employment Tribunal has said that I am to be treated as having the expertise of a practising solicitor, I see no need for the judge's current stand on my case which is pure prejudice in forcing me to consider no win, no fee conditional fee arrangements. I don't particularly want to trawl round solicitors offices seeking a CFA and to date I have had no luck with those firms advertised on television.
Do I have a case - yes - I have a psychiatric injury as a result of prolonged exposure to stress caused by my employer who "knowingly" had no clients or calibre client work for 2 1/2 years resulting in me having to fend for myself for work in a top 20 London law firm [S J Berwin & Co]. I was eventually dismissed for using an abusive word in an email (there using retrospective rules so as to dismiss and the word being in the Oxford English dictionary and meant to be used) when I notified marketing that fabricated information was in Chambers Directory that my boss [Julian Critchlow] was a "leading individual and thorough" when he had no clients! My reference upon being sacked was that I was "honest with integrity".
I had whistleblew my contract of employment at a whistleblowing lecture. I had raised complaints about my bosses and had "informal chats" which were bizarrely dealt with as "informal disciplinary hearings". There was a sick note on my file stating "stress" to which they said "should we get counselling", none received and did nothing about, not even to discuss my situation in the department.
The court require me to show that (a) there was a breach of duty of care - sick note should do and (b) that it was foreseeable that a psychiatric injury would occur - in such a negative state of affairs over 2 1/2 years yes it was foreseeable especially indirectly via performance figures - every 6 minutes of a fee earner's time is recorded as 6 min = 1 unit to chargeable time or non-chargeable time to a value of at least 70 units per day. Someone collates this information which presumably is seen by the Senior Partner for the entire department and personally for each person at the end of the month. Mine make interesting reading especially in comparison to my male comparator, Elie and also a temp, Solomon. What was my line manager up to - not looking out for my welfare in the firm in any event!
So, whilst I am looking for an CFA, perhaps Ken Clarke MP could assist by taking a little look at the Woolf Reforms which cut the link which the judge in my case has been trying to create with the Official Solicitor, or just cut the nonsense altogether and let me get on with the case as a litigant in person and worry about the costs as they arise.
Respondents are currently hiding behind the skirts of the courts and have "agreed" with the judge upon his request to the passing of a piece of paper across the desk signed and dated which is contrary to human rights legislation and article 6 in particular, the right to a fair trial, implying a conspiracy exists with this nonsense of a litigant friend between judge and respondents - he could equally have insisted on mediation between the parties, but I have already suggested it (because of the Woolf reforms) and they don't want to do it preferring to hide behind the skirts of the court instead. I have been stayed for 4 years now, unless my Consultant will agree there is no need for a litigant friend whether a patient or not a patient then I don't know when I will get Justice let alone access to justice.
It's not like I don't know what I am doing or what I am up against and Respondents' solicitors have surely run out of dirty tricks by now as I lost a sex discrimination action with the judge preferring respondents' evidence even although they had lied and evaded in witness statements and attempted to prevent my evidence being seen by the court by removing discovered material to an agreed court bundle, necessitating a disagreed court bundle on the first day of trial. The performance figures show that sex discrimination did actually occur as delivered up by respondents' solicitors and that less favourable treatment is a material factor in my personal injury and professional negligence action currently before the Royal Courts. One of my bosses [Nicholas Carnell] did 11 pages of holiday notes showing no active client work on any client file bar one which was settled while he was away on holiday leaving him with no client work, the other boss [Julian Critchlow] simply had no client work for which I assisted his orchestration to the PFI Group where he still gave me no work at all. I had no difficulty working for the Environment or Advocacy Departments! So the liability is not with me. Why respondents' solicitors don't want to settle is a mystery but right now the judge's stance on this case is a gift to them ...
If anyone would like to be a litigant friend or offer a realistic conditional fee arrangement on a no win, no fee basis kindly contact me via email at the top of my blog ... I would however prefer to be a litigant in person in control of my costs, with a judge in control of his courtroom on the premis of equality before the law ... I currently feel most "UNEQUAL" and should not have to find my own litigant friend if the court are insisting on it without just cause.
I have recently been approaching law firms for a CFA to do my case which is stayed in the Royal Courts of Justice, London. The judge is insisting that I have a litigant friend and the case has been stayed for 4 years now with the Official Solicitor for England & Wales being requested twice by the judge to act on my behalf, both times her [Samson-Tandoh] refusing to do so allegedly latterly because of the Woolf Reforms.
Ken Clarke MP has made several recommendations : "Clarke said he will seek legislation to restore the fundamental values of civil justice and attacked a system where legal costs often outstrip compensation payments. He called the current situation "unparalled in any other country". "We plan to end the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums, which drive legal costs, award claimants a 10 per cent uplift in general damages where they have suffered loss, and then ensure that they take an interest in controlling the bills being run up on their behalf by expecting them to pay their own lawyer's success fee," he said. Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said it is difficult to disagree with reforming civil justice, a process that the last Labour government began. He said that while he accepts the costs of civil cases should be reformed, all people should have recourse to the civil courts. He said that the poor already have trouble finding a lawyer to act on their behalf and these changes may exacerbate that situation. "There is a fear that these plans go so far in trying to keep down costs that some claimants with meritorious cases would find it difficult, if not impossible, to find a lawyer to take on their case," he said.
...
There will be a consultation on other plans to improve how court judgments are enforced, so that people receive what it is judged they are owed, as well as introducing automatic referral to mediation in small claims cases, or mediation awareness sessions in higher-value cases, to help people avoid court where possible. Clarke wants to raise the small claims limit and to change the county court jurisdiction so that the High Court is used for bigger and more complex claims only".
What Ken Clarke MP has failed to encapsulate is that people can do their cases themselves as a litigant in person. I know that I prefer that opportunity. It keeps costs down to court costs only which are realistic. Given a judge of an Employment Tribunal has said that I am to be treated as having the expertise of a practising solicitor, I see no need for the judge's current stand on my case which is pure prejudice in forcing me to consider no win, no fee conditional fee arrangements. I don't particularly want to trawl round solicitors offices seeking a CFA and to date I have had no luck with those firms advertised on television.
Do I have a case - yes - I have a psychiatric injury as a result of prolonged exposure to stress caused by my employer who "knowingly" had no clients or calibre client work for 2 1/2 years resulting in me having to fend for myself for work in a top 20 London law firm [S J Berwin & Co]. I was eventually dismissed for using an abusive word in an email (there using retrospective rules so as to dismiss and the word being in the Oxford English dictionary and meant to be used) when I notified marketing that fabricated information was in Chambers Directory that my boss [Julian Critchlow] was a "leading individual and thorough" when he had no clients! My reference upon being sacked was that I was "honest with integrity".
I had whistleblew my contract of employment at a whistleblowing lecture. I had raised complaints about my bosses and had "informal chats" which were bizarrely dealt with as "informal disciplinary hearings". There was a sick note on my file stating "stress" to which they said "should we get counselling", none received and did nothing about, not even to discuss my situation in the department.
The court require me to show that (a) there was a breach of duty of care - sick note should do and (b) that it was foreseeable that a psychiatric injury would occur - in such a negative state of affairs over 2 1/2 years yes it was foreseeable especially indirectly via performance figures - every 6 minutes of a fee earner's time is recorded as 6 min = 1 unit to chargeable time or non-chargeable time to a value of at least 70 units per day. Someone collates this information which presumably is seen by the Senior Partner for the entire department and personally for each person at the end of the month. Mine make interesting reading especially in comparison to my male comparator, Elie and also a temp, Solomon. What was my line manager up to - not looking out for my welfare in the firm in any event!
So, whilst I am looking for an CFA, perhaps Ken Clarke MP could assist by taking a little look at the Woolf Reforms which cut the link which the judge in my case has been trying to create with the Official Solicitor, or just cut the nonsense altogether and let me get on with the case as a litigant in person and worry about the costs as they arise.
Respondents are currently hiding behind the skirts of the courts and have "agreed" with the judge upon his request to the passing of a piece of paper across the desk signed and dated which is contrary to human rights legislation and article 6 in particular, the right to a fair trial, implying a conspiracy exists with this nonsense of a litigant friend between judge and respondents - he could equally have insisted on mediation between the parties, but I have already suggested it (because of the Woolf reforms) and they don't want to do it preferring to hide behind the skirts of the court instead. I have been stayed for 4 years now, unless my Consultant will agree there is no need for a litigant friend whether a patient or not a patient then I don't know when I will get Justice let alone access to justice.
It's not like I don't know what I am doing or what I am up against and Respondents' solicitors have surely run out of dirty tricks by now as I lost a sex discrimination action with the judge preferring respondents' evidence even although they had lied and evaded in witness statements and attempted to prevent my evidence being seen by the court by removing discovered material to an agreed court bundle, necessitating a disagreed court bundle on the first day of trial. The performance figures show that sex discrimination did actually occur as delivered up by respondents' solicitors and that less favourable treatment is a material factor in my personal injury and professional negligence action currently before the Royal Courts. One of my bosses [Nicholas Carnell] did 11 pages of holiday notes showing no active client work on any client file bar one which was settled while he was away on holiday leaving him with no client work, the other boss [Julian Critchlow] simply had no client work for which I assisted his orchestration to the PFI Group where he still gave me no work at all. I had no difficulty working for the Environment or Advocacy Departments! So the liability is not with me. Why respondents' solicitors don't want to settle is a mystery but right now the judge's stance on this case is a gift to them ...
If anyone would like to be a litigant friend or offer a realistic conditional fee arrangement on a no win, no fee basis kindly contact me via email at the top of my blog ... I would however prefer to be a litigant in person in control of my costs, with a judge in control of his courtroom on the premis of equality before the law ... I currently feel most "UNEQUAL" and should not have to find my own litigant friend if the court are insisting on it without just cause.
posted by Lesley McDade at 10:32 pm
1 comments
