An American Future? Contingency Fees, Claims Explosions and Evidence from Employment Tribunals

R. Moorhead
{"title":"An American Future? Contingency Fees, Claims Explosions and Evidence from Employment Tribunals","authors":"R. Moorhead","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00817.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article looks empirically at the notion of ‘American-style’ problems with contingency fees: in particular, the purported link between contingency fees and claims explosions. It does so in the light of renewed interest in contingency fees as a vehicle for access to justice and the resolution of costs problems in the civil justice system prompted by Jackson LJ and others. The article sheds light on the considerable debate about the (de)merits of contingency fees in one of the main – and most controversial – contexts where they are permitted: employment tribunals. The evidence casts doubt on the claim that contingency fees, coupled with US-style costs rules, lead inexorably to an explosion in litigation. The article also examines the significant inequalities in access to justice experienced by claimants and considers how far contingency fees address those concerns, suggesting limits to Kritzer's portfolio theory in relation to employment cases in England and Wales.","PeriodicalId":426546,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00817.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This article looks empirically at the notion of ‘American-style’ problems with contingency fees: in particular, the purported link between contingency fees and claims explosions. It does so in the light of renewed interest in contingency fees as a vehicle for access to justice and the resolution of costs problems in the civil justice system prompted by Jackson LJ and others. The article sheds light on the considerable debate about the (de)merits of contingency fees in one of the main – and most controversial – contexts where they are permitted: employment tribunals. The evidence casts doubt on the claim that contingency fees, coupled with US-style costs rules, lead inexorably to an explosion in litigation. The article also examines the significant inequalities in access to justice experienced by claimants and considers how far contingency fees address those concerns, suggesting limits to Kritzer's portfolio theory in relation to employment cases in England and Wales.
美国的未来?意外费用,索赔爆炸和就业法庭证据
本文从经验上考察了“美式”的应急费用问题概念:特别是所谓的应急费用与索赔激增之间的联系。它之所以这样做,是因为Jackson LJ和其他人促使人们重新关注应急费用,将其作为诉诸司法的工具,并解决民事司法系统中的成本问题。这篇文章揭示了在允许收取应急费用的主要(也是最具争议的)环境之一——就业法庭——中,有关应急费用利弊的大量争论。这些证据让人们对下述说法产生了怀疑:即应急费用加上美国式的成本规则,不可避免地导致诉讼激增。本文还考察了索赔人在诉诸司法方面所经历的重大不平等,并考虑了应急费用在多大程度上解决了这些问题,这表明了克里策的投资组合理论在英格兰和威尔士就业案件中的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信