About Class Law

Howard Epstein and Stephen Alexander have between them, by mid-2003, sixty years’ experience of commercial matters, both contentious and non-contentious. Howard is unusual in having a very broad experience and has specialised in bringing nearly every dispute he has handled – and of course every commercial transaction – to a negotiated settlement. Stephen is unusual in having spent some years as a banker. He sees most situations as a corporate finance problem – again to be settled by negotiation if possible. Both recognise, however, that some situations require other strategies, which often means the issue of proceedings. This may be merely the first step along the road that leads to settlement; but they are fully prepared to take litigation to its inevitable conclusion, even if that means a full-blown trial, where the other parties are not prepared to negotiate. 

Between them, Howard, Stephen and Wynne have developed technology – know-how – believed to be second to none in the English legal system for handling group actions. There are certain essential elements, which are required to get up and then sustain a group action in the English Courts, which include:-

·        PR;

·        Group rules;

·        Insurance; and

·        Legal team appropriate to the activity.

Our competitors will understand if we do not explore these matters here. We shall certainly explain each element to our clients as the matters progress and we say here that, of these, we have identified insurance as the key element.

There is nothing about litigation as practised in the UK, that is more significant than risk. Our system works on a “loser pays all costs basis”. It is the adverse costs order that is the first bastion against the proliferation of litigation. Litigation is, however, increasingly viewed in the UK as some sort of social evil. It is, illogically in our view, seen as a greater social evil than the harm which successful litigation can remedy. This is a philosophy that will not be changed overnight.

Be that as it may, risk is a deterrent to litigation. One advantage of a group action is that the risk can be shared amongst many claimants. Further, although at first sight it may seem that the liability of the claimants for the costs of the defendant (where the claimants are unsuccessful) is joint (i.e. any one claimant could be liable for all the costs – necessitating the pre-collection of sufficient funds to cover an adverse costs order) there is case law which says that the Court may order that the liability for costs should be several, i.e. according to proportionate value of each claimant’s own claim.

To take the technology to the next stage, the corollary of risk is insurance and we have located insurance products which ought to take away much of the pain of litigation. Again, our competitors will understand if do not go into it here; but the powerful abuser of individual’s rights should take note: our clients will be fully funded at a modest cost and negligible risk.

We believe that the law is at a crucial stage of development. The maintaining by third parties of claimant’s proceedings has been given a welcome green light recently. Doing so for a modest share of the “winnings” (the amount recovered) has also recently been judicially approved in certain circumstances. Further, solicitors are now allowed to take an interest in the outcome of their client’s claims (by virtue of the conditional fee agreement allowing for a success fee in no win/no fee cases of up to 100% increase of recoverable costs) and hovering in the background is the Access to Justice Act 1999, which enticingly suggests that the last piece in the jigsaw may be supplied at a future date. Strangely the shape, pattern and colours of this last piece are not yet discernable, but that there is a gap in the tableau is plain. Perhaps it will be a contingent fee basis of financing claims whereby either the solicitor or another party puts up the money in return for a share of the winnings. That would not of itself lead to a proliferation of poor claims which ought never to be brought. People wishing to make a profit on a given situation are not normally given to assuming long odds on the risks. In any event, for a fuller examination of this area, click on Contingent Fee Agreements.

Finally, insurance again. We have developed a “basic law” in our approach to litigation; unless insurance cover can be obtained at normal commercial rates, the litigation should not normally be undertaken. This has two results. Clients will know we run litigation for them alone and not for ourselves. Opponents of our clients will know that if proceedings are issued they are first considered to have a reasonable considerable chance of success and secondly fully funded.

We are here to provide a service and to make a profit. If we do not do both we cannot do either. Taking them together, we recognise that we are in business but that it is one that must be run to the highest professional standards.