Slater and Gordon has successfully defended itself against a major challenge from hundreds of former personal injury clients who claimed they were not properly informed about legal cost deductions.
In a judgment reported in the Law Society Gazette expected to influence the broader personal injury (PI) legal sector, Senior Costs Judge Rowley ruled in favour of Slater and Gordon, confirming that the firm used a “perfectly appropriate method” to inform clients of legal fees and funding arrangements.
Key Ruling in Personal Injury Retainer Case
The case, Richardson & Ors v Slater & Gordon UK Limited, involved 224 claimants, with 10 selected as test cases. The central argument was that Slater and Gordon failed to obtain informed consent for deductions from damages and did not properly explain clients’ potential liability for legal costs.
However, the judge disagreed. He found that the terms of the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) commonly known as a “no win, no fee” arrangement—were set out clearly in plain language. The documents used had been in standard format for many years, and clients were provided with sufficient detail to make informed decisions.
Clear Communication of Legal Costs
Clients were onboarded via telephone, during which representatives from Slater and Gordon explained key aspects of the CFA, including the capped 25% deduction from compensation. Supporting documents were emailed during the calls, and the judge noted that some clients signed electronically within minutes.
Judge Rowley emphasised that the claimants did not meaningfully engage with the documentation at the time. He stated, “It is abundantly clear that they did not engage to any great extent with the information they had been provided with in any event.”
The court found no evidence that claimants were pressured into signing the agreements. Instead, they were given time and space to review the terms if they wished.
Victory for Law Firms in Personal Injury Cost Challenges
The ruling is likely to be welcomed by other PI firms facing similar legal cost challenges. Slater and Gordon praised the decision as a full endorsement of their client engagement process.
A firm spokesperson commented:
“We have always rejected claims that former clients were pressured or that our retainers were defective. This judgment clearly confirms our position. We ensure every client has the information they need to make informed choices about funding their claim.”
Conclusion
This legal victory for Slater and Gordon sets a significant precedent in the realm of personal injury law and client consent in CFA agreements. It reinforces the importance of transparent communication around legal costs and supports the legitimacy of long-standing onboarding practices used across the industry.
Further reading on No Win, No Fee and costs, Dare You Challenge Your Solicitors’ Fees?
