Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 April 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
My Lords, why success fees should be claimed at all by lawyers in this type of case just defeats me. The problem is in identifying the insurers of a particular firm that may have exposed the sufferer to asbestos many years before. I am delighted to hear that discussions are afoot on setting up a scheme akin to the Motor Insurers' Bureau, whereby insurers come together to meet the damages and costs of a sufferer who cannot identify a particular insurance company behind his former employer. I hope that comes to pass. If it does, it will cure a lot of problems. It is obvious when a person suffers from mesothelioma; you do not have to prove that someone is suffering from this condition. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision last year, it has to be shown only that an employer has exposed an individual to asbestos in the past for that individual's claim to succeed. The statistics show that these cases settle. What does that mean? It means that the fees of the lawyer are not at risk; he will have his ordinary fees paid by the insurer. Therefore, why should he get a success fee over and above that? On Report, I proposed that there should certainly be no success fee payable if a case settles before steps are taken to bring it to trial. I ask the Minister to take this into account when regulations are drawn up under what will be Section 46. The lawyer is not at risk. He has done nothing to earn more than the fees that he can properly charge. We did not have success fees in the past. We acted for people and, if we lost, we did not charge them. When we won, we got our costs and the expenses that we had paid from the other side, properly taxed. That was how the system worked. I hope that the Government can bring in a combination of the Motor Insurers' Bureau scheme for this type of case and couple it with regulations that say that no success fee should be charged when a case settles. That would do a great deal to alleviate the problems of which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, speaks. He is right. I stand along with Ian Lucas, my Member of Parliament in Wrexham, who as a lawyer says, ““We didn't come into this profession in order to take money from injured people””. I think that only a heartless claimant's solicitor would charge a success fee in cases of this nature.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 736 c1613-4
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Compensation Appeals Asylum Damages Civil servants Advisory services Asbestos Equality Health services Fees and charges Legal aid scheme Immigration Domestic abuse Legal Services Commission Legal costs Industrial diseases Public appointments Negligence Mesothelioma Tribunals Social security benefits Telephone services Financial procedure Law centres First-tier Tribunal Lord Chancellor Citizens' advice bureaux
- Legislation
- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-05-13 12:14:00 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_824917
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_824917
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_824917