Dugdale was awarded an “uplift” which suggests her lawyers were on some kind of “conditional fee agreement” (or “No win, No fee” agreement for the lay folk).

You can have a “No Win, No Fee” (where you don’t pay your solicitors if you lose) or you can have a “No Win, Low Fee” (where you pay a lower hourly rate if you lose) -

But with these agreements the lawyer can charge an uplift (also known as a success fee) in the event that the claim wins. The success fee would be a % of the legal costs which can be recoverable against the opponent in certain cases. The success fee is usually assessed as the risk to the solicitors that if the person doesn’t win then they don’t get paid (or paid less).

In these cases there’s always the risk that if you lose you end up paying a vast amount of money to your opponent. To protect your client against this outcome you can also have “ATE” Insurance - which is a policy that pays your opponent if you lose so it’s not coming out your clients pocket and they have little risk that they will end up paying anything. The ATE has conditions namely that you’ve got to be more likely to win than lose. The cost of the ATE premium is often deferred as well so it’s not payable to the end of the case and may even be underwritten so you don’t even pay for the policy if you lose. The cost of the ATE can often be payable by the losing party in some cases too.

So you’ve got:-

1) the clients claim/defence
2) the solicitors costs
3) the solicitors success fee
4) the clients expenses - like court fees
5) the barristers fees
6) the ATE premium

If your client wins their argument all of the above become payable by the opponent.

That’s a typical funding setup for a conditional fee agreement. In those circumstances the client has little risk at all but the funding will only remain in place if the claim/defence is more likely to succeed. The only problem is getting lawyers to take a defamation case with this funding setup, but I can see big lawyers wanting to attract big publicity cases for a rep.

Mind you, I’m still confused what RevStu’s funding arrangements with his solicitor are.

If he’s got a similar arrangement with his solicitors then if he loses his ATE policy picks up the tab. There’s no need for more money. If he doesn’t have an ATE policy to cover adverse costs orders, then why not? It’s not like these are unusual agreements; they’re routine. If his case was strong enough (and I’m assuming his solicitors decided it had prospects better than 50/50; it’s not like he’s been doing it himself like he used to do (and fucked up before IIRC)) then he should have had advice about adverse costs order (again, routine) and covering those costs (routine).

I asked him on his site whether he had ATE and my comment was moderated into oblivion.

He might not have it but I’m curious.

*disclaimer all of the above is highly simplified.