Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill — Clause 41 — Regulation of No-Win No-Fee Arrangements — 2 Nov 2011 at 18:00

David Laws MP, Yeovil voted against exempting defamation cases and privacy cases under the right to respect for private and family life from regulation, including caps, on success fees in no-win no-fee arrangements for charging for legal services.

The majority of MPs voted against exempting defamation cases and privacy cases under the right to respect for private and family life from regulation, including caps, on success fees in no-win no-fee arrangements for charging for legal services.

MPs were considering the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill[1]. The amendment rejected by this vote was:

  • Amendment 163, page 29, line 41, at end insert—
  • ‘(7) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to a success fee payable under a conditional fee agreement made in relation to—
  • (a) any proceedings based on a claim of defamation; or
  • (b) any proceedings based on a claim of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; or
  • (c) any proceedings arising out of the same cause of action as any proceedings to which paragraphs (a) or (b) refer.’.

Clause 41[2] titled Conditional fee agreements: success fees introduced increased regulation on the use of no-win no-fee (or no-win low fee) arrangements for charging for legal services; including capping fees to be paid on success as a fraction of damages, with the maximum level to be set out in secondary legislation.

The explanatory notes to the Bill explain the effect of provisions within Clause 41 :

  • They require the CFA [Conditional Fee Arrangements (eg. no-win no-fee)] to cap the success fee at a percentage of certain damages awarded to the client if they win. The cap and the kinds of damages to which it applies are to be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. These provisions will be of particular importance in personal injury claims, for example, where it is proposed to exclude damages for future care and loss from the calculation of any success fee.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con264 (+2 tell) 0086.9%
DUP0 2025.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 216 (+2 tell)084.5%
LDem41 2075.4%
Total:305 222084.2%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Andrew GeorgeSt IvesLDemaye
David WardBradford EastLDemaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive