View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Comment
December 7, 2010updated 08 Dec 2010 4:46pm

Wilmshurst libel case shows that no win, no fee is not always a bad thing

By Dominic Ponsford1

Press Gazette has for many years now been an outspoken critic of Conditional Fee Agreements in libel cases.

But the case of Dr Peter Wilmshurst – which has become a touchstone for the Libel Reform Campaign – shows that CFAs are not always a bad thing.

CFAs were brought about under Labour’s access to justice reforms and work by allowing claimant lawyers to charge double to the losing side in order to compensate them for the risk of failure. In practice, this means newspapers stand to lose millions if they take a libel case to trial and hundreds of thousands in any case if they don’t settle fairly quickly.

This leads to a ‘ransom factor’. Even if you believe you are right, often you must settle because the risk of losing is so high. And even if publishers win at trial, they will probably lose financially- because claimants can seldom afford to pay newspapers’ own substantial costs.

Dr Wilmshurst is being sued by a US company over concerns he raised about the safety of a medical device. He has only been able to defend is reputation because his lawyer, Mark Lewis, has taken the case on a CFA.

As the current Government prepares to put out it its hotly anticipated Libel Reform Bill to consultation next March, Lewis cautions that we should not “throw out the baby with the bathwater” on CFAs.

He told Press Gazette: “Whilst there might be problems with libel costs, it is the underlying cost that causes the problem not the CFA uplift. As with all libel claims, the importance is the maintenance of the balance.

“The removal of CFA’s and the absence of public funding takes us back to a very sorry situation whereby only the super-rich can afford reputations – even if they don’t deserve them.  What needs to be addressed is access to justice for both claimants and defendants.”

UPDATE: Press Gazette has learned that Law firm Carter Ruck, normally the scourge of publishers, is defending journalist Hardeep Singh on a CFA in his libel fight against an Indian holy man.

Topics in this article :

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly dose of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how Progressive Media Investments may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network