Customer area
Brighton 01273 685 888
Funding Your Case
call-answerCall Us
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • ×

    At Healys we understand that you cannot always privately fund your claim and with any case there is an element at risk. However, there are a number of ways we can help to fund your case and share that risk.

    Risk Sharing

    • Conditional fees (No Win No Fee) – In this type of arrangement if you lose your case, your lawyer will make no charge in respect of profit costs, but you will have to pay your own disbursements and your opponent’s legal costs.  If you win, your lawyer is entitled to charge a success fee on top of the normal hourly rate.  Your opponent will not be ordered to pay any part of the success fee but rather it will be paid out of any damages awarded in the case.  Please note that it is not obligatory to charge a success fee. We will seek not to do so but it will depend upon the merits of your case.
    • Hybrid Conditional fees – In this type of arrangement, a proportion of the work carried out (e.g. 50% will be charged in accordance with our usual retainer terms) i.e. paid on an hourly basis and at the end of each month, and the balance will be subject to conditional fees (i.e. only charged if you win).  This is becoming an increasingly popular arrangement; not least because it requires that there is a sharing of the risk between the client and the firm.
    • Contingency fees/damage-based agreements – In this type of agreement, you will again not be charged any profit costs if you lose the case.  If you are successful you will be charged a percentage of that recovered as agreed at the outset but which cannot be more than 50% (25% if a personal injury case) of that recovered.
    • Contingent fees – It is also possible to agree that we will charge you on the basis of an hourly rate if your case is won, but that the rate will be reduced if your case is unsuccessful.

    It is important that you understand that, if we do enter into such an arrangement, the definition of success in relation to your case must be agreed and clearly set out.

    It is also important for you to appreciate that, prior to any such arrangement being agreed, we may have to carry out a risk assessment exercise to determine whether we are prepared to take your matter on any of the above ‘risk-sharing’ bases.  If so, the risk assessment may be charged at our usual hourly rates and which would need to be paid before any risk sharing arrangement is entered into.  Often, it is only after the risk assessment has taken place that we can we decide whether we are willing to take on the matter on a conditional, contingency or contingent fee arrangement.

    We will also be entitled to carry out further risk assessments during the course of the matter and, if any issues arise which affect the prospects of success, we will review whether we are prepared to continue to carry on with the arrangement in place.

    Third Party Funding

    This is self-explanatory. It includes funding from commercial entities and with which we have connections.  There are, however, issues of which you need to be aware if your matter is funded by a third party.  We will advise you on such issues if relevant to your matter.


    There are two types of insurance which may be available to fund litigation:

    a)    A pre-existing insurance policy (“before the event insurance”) which provides cover for legal expenses.  This can be a policy covering just legal expenses.  It is also, however, now relatively common for legal expenses cover to be included in a standard home or motor insurance policy.  However, such policies are frequently limited in what they cover and may include restrictions on your freedom of choice of lawyer.  We recommend that you look at the insurance policies which you have in place to check whether or not legal expenses insurance is included.  We will be happy to advise you on this point if you wish us to do so.  Indeed, if in doubt, we strongly recommend that you let us have a copy of the policy.

    b)    Insurance policies which are taken out to provide cover for the cost of litigation after a dispute has arisen (“after the event insurance”).  The premiums for these policies depend on a number of factors, most importantly, the amount of cover required.  These policies can provide protection against the possibility of you having to pay the total costs of litigation in the event that you lose a case.  Insurance cover can be purchased in respect of your opponent’s legal costs, your own disbursements (including Court fees, Counsels’ fees and experts’ fees) and also your own legal costs.  It is usual for these policies only to pay out in the event that you lose your case completely.  In certain circumstances, the payment of the premium can be deferred until the end of the case when it is hoped (but cannot be guaranteed) that you will have the damages from which to make the payment (see below).

    It is almost invariably a requirement that, as part of completing the proposal form, a copy of Counsel’s written opinion on the merits of the case is provided.   This will have to be obtained and paid for on the basis set out in our retainer letter.

    In considering this type of cover, it is imperative that you ascertain how you will be able to fund the premium.  Although, in the past, it was possible for the Court to order your opponent to repay you this premium if you win your case, this is no longer the case.  If the premium is deferred it will be payable out of your damages.  Alternatively, if not deferred, it will be payable at the outset.

    Please note that we are not competent or willing to advise you on all the various insurance products available.  We are lawyers, not insurance advisors.  It is for this reason that we engage a broker (and we have relationships with a number of them) to obtain the best/most suitable products for our clients.

    Call Us Today
    Call our London office on 020 7822 4000 or our Brighton office on 01273 685 888. You can also contact us online.
    Call Us Today
    London: 020 7822 4000 Brighton: 01273 685 888 Or you can contact us online: Contact Us
    Funding Your Case capabilities
    Funding Your Case experiences
    • Our client, a property developer was in the process of obtaining a property. The case involved two law firms that acted for the buyer & seller. After the transaction was complete, the client discovered that the seller had committed identity fraud and lost a considerable amount of money. Issues included breach of warranty of authority and breach of trust on the part of the solicitors who acted on behalf of the fraudster; the scope of the duty of care of the firm acting on behalf of our clients and whether the clients’ consequential loss of profit was recoverable at law. Our client decided to contact Jerome O’Sullivan and Healys’ Professional Negligence team in order to make a claim. Solicitors’ legal obligations in such circumstances are unclear and this matter may lead to clarification of the law in this regard. The team, led by Jerome O’Sullivan was able to successfully make a claim against the two firms for £1.5million.
    • Our client divorced with his wife and asked his former solicitors to take on his case. After completing procedures, he realised that the law firm had not protected his interests & assets. His wife dissipated all the assets leaving him very surprised and unsatisfied by the service that they had provided. Our client decided to contact Robert Johnson and Healys’ Professional Negligence team in order to make a claim. Robert Johnson and the Healys Family team acted extremely promptly to guarantee our client a success in his claim. They were able to successfully make a claim in the sum of £50,000 for failure in acting for our client’s best interests.
    • Our client’s claim arose out of the failings of her former solicitors to deal with her divorce. This included the dissipation of assets held by the husband in Hong Kong by way of freezing orders. The claim focused on conflicting evidence between the client and husbands solicitor. After lengthy negotiations with the other side, Robert Johnson was able to secure the client £650,000 in compensation.
    • Our client had a previous claim with another law firm in relation to his property being undervalued when sold. Unfortunately our client received poor advice from the previous law firm which resulted in him loosing the initial claim against the mortgagee and valuer. Robert Johnson was able to successfully make a claim against the previous law firm for loss in opportunity. After lengthy mediation with the other side, Robert was able to secure our client £800,000 in compensation.
    • Our client needed advice regarding an Under-Lease, and so they approached a firm about their issue. However, our client soon realised that the firm had given incorrect advice. He decided to contact Healys in order to make a claim against the law firm for failure to advise properly in relation to the purchase of an under-lease, the terms of that under lease, the status of the head lessee and rental payment terms. The team, led by Robert Johnson was able to successfully make a claim for £150,000 against the firm.
    • Our client decided to make a claim against their former solicitor in respect of the failure to advise properly with regard to rights of appointment of LPA Receivers leading to the adoption of the wrong strategy, appointment of receivers and subsequent losses. The team, led by Robert Johnson was able to successfully make a claim against the firm for £4 million in failing to advise on the risks of the strategy.
    • Our client instructed a firm of solicitors to deal with a claim in regard to his former employer. He was unfortunately unaware that the firm he instructed was in financial difficulty. Subsequently the firm went into liquidation. This lead to the solicitor dealing with the case to be negligent towards our client’s case. The team, led by Robert Johnson was able to successfully make a claim for £200,000 against the firm for failure in treating our clients claim with due care and diligence. Nick Evans, our employment law expert, also took part at the claim. We acted for the client under a CFA and since the case the firm in question has been dissolved.
    • The client’s wife was involved in an RTA which led to a claim on the client’s insurance. The insurer instructed a solicitor in the client’s name to commence proceedings to recover the insurer’s losses from the other party involved in the RTA. The solicitor negligently allowed a judgement in default to be entered on a counterclaim against our client. The client was unaware of the judgement until he applied for a mortgage some 15 months later. As a result our client suffered numerous heads of losses including increased mortgage costs and potential loss of earnings because of his job as a police officer. The case was led by Ben Parr-Ferris who made a claim against the solicitor for negligently allowing the judgement on his wife’s RTA insurance claim. The aim of Ben and his team was to safeguard the client’s career and make sure the judgement does not affect his progression. A number of negotiations were attempt with the insurer in order to revert the decision made by the solicitor as an insurer debt. However, both of them failed. Although the team were able to get assurances from our client’s employer that the judgement should not impact the client career in any way. The solicitor has since accepted liability and Ben Parr-Ferris was able to secure our client £30,000 in compensation.
    • While in the process of buying their new home, our clients contacted Property Survey Company in order to complete the required checks on their potential new property. The Property Survey Company completed all the checks and informed our clients that no defects were found. Unfortunately after purchasing the property our clients noticed a number of defects in the property and after getting a second opinion it was found that the original survey was incorrect. The team was able to successfully make claim against the property surveyor as they failed to provide our clients with the survey they asked for but also they failed to identify certain defects in the property. Robert and the team were able to secure £50,000 in compensation for our clients in an out of court settlement.
    • Our client had a significant property portfolio. She found out that a number of her properties had been sold without her knowledge under her ex-husbands name. The properties in question were equally owned by our client and her ex-husband, so no sale should have taken place without her knowledge. After instructing a number of expert witnesses that included a hand writing expert, it was found that the property was unlawfully sold. With this information, Robert Johnson and the Professional Negligence team at Healys was able to secure £750,000 in compensation after lengthy mediation with the other side.
    Funding Your Case insights
    Funding Your Case awards
    • Chambers & Partners 2021 : Professional Negligence – "Robert Johnson has considerable expertise representing individuals in negligence claims against solicitors, accountants and real estate agencies. ‘He has excellent analytical skills, strong commitment to his clients and commercial astuteness.‘ ‘He is very easy to work with and always available to respond to any queries.‘ ‘He is able to describe complex details in layperson’s terms while guiding clients through the legal details of the case.'”
    • Legal 500 2021 : Professional Negligence - "Healys LLP ‘compares very favourably with other larger law firms’ in advising individuals and companies on claims against a range of professions. In recent years, the practice has primarily acted against solicitors, though practice head Robert Johnson has a ‘wealth of experience’ in advising on claims involving barristers, architects, surveyors, financial advisers and accountants. David Bailey handles large group claims and fraud issues."
    Funding Your Case news