Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill — Clause 41 — Regulation of No-Win No-Fee Arrangements — 2 Nov 2011 at 18:00
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.
==
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.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 264 (+2 tell) | 0 | 0 | 86.9% |
| DUP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 25.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 216 (+2 tell) | 0 | 84.5% |
| LDem | 41 | 2 | 0 | 75.4% |
| Total: | 305 | 222 | 0 | 84.2% |
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
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| Andrew George | St Ives | LDem (front bench) | aye |
| David Ward | Bradford East | LDem (front bench) | aye |