No win no fee has been a wonderful breakthrough to offer justice to many people who could otherwise not afford legal representation. However it is also still a hugely risky proposition for both parties and the nature of the British legal system can often add to this.
Britain has founded our legal system on a very different set of rules to most other parts of the world. Most of our law is founded on common law with additions made through precidents, either principally through parliament or legal challenges. We have no written constitution that is set in stone, like say the United States or France.
The only solid, immovable legal set of rule in operation in this country comes under the European Human Rights Act 1998 (EHRA). This lack of a codified set of laws means that legal challenges can be more optimistic if existing legislation appears unfair to the claimant. "No Win No Fee creates a gambling mentality towards legal challenges, because the outcome to cases can often be so much more unpredictable. In the US, such challenges would never occur, because laws are more set in stone. This means that evidence would have to be, in theory, rather more solid.
The case of Graham Calvert, the 28-year-old Greyhound trainer is a case in point. This week he lost a claim for compensation after gambling over £2 million away due to a compulsive addiction. He sued William Hill, the bookmaker, because he alleged that they had failed in their duty of care. Mr Calvert had signed up to their care scheme, which was supposed to prevent compulsive gamblers from placing bets.
He is now going to take his case to The Court of Appeal, and because the original case was on a "No Win No Fee" basis, Mr Calvert is free of personal legal costs. However it is clear that he will have to pay up William Hill's and it is unlikely he would ever want to appeal, if it wasn't for the fact that this is a landmark case and their is the potential for a precedent to chase. If this was the US, Mr Calvert would have probably given up at this point. The risk of losing another "No win, no fee" case would be great, but with the unpredictability of the British legal system, who can blame him for carrying on?
While it is fantastic that Mr Calvert can continue his quest for justice, "no win no fee" arrangements seem to create a feeling of giving the people "one more go" in Britain. Not having to pay your own fees does save many people money, but it does not save our legal system time, often with some cases that have really run their course.
Tom is an author of several articles pertaining to Compensation, No Win No Fee/a>.