Tags

The Lawyer’s system.
This is interesting case demonstrating how technology is keeping pace with the way in which legal services can be provided in small cases. Here is how Lewison LJ described the system created by one lawyer to handle very small and routine claims against an airline.
9. [The firm ‘B’] ‘began handling flight delay compensation claims… since when it has acted on approximately 125,000 claims. It has a Flight Delay Compensation Department, which is staffed by one solicitor…assisted by paralegals. [B] has developed an on-line tool, accessible on its website, which enables a prospective client to enter their flight details and then check whether their claim satisfies the basic eligibility conditions. Those conditions concern time limits and length of delay…distance…and whether a flight was to or from an airport in an EU member state… The on-line tool operates without human intervention on the data entered by the prospective client and includes a check against a database of weather reports in order to anticipate whether a problem with the weather might have caused the delay, constituting “extraordinary circumstances” and thus a defence of the airline to a claim for compensation for the delay.
10. After it has operated on the data entered by a prospective client, [B’s] on-line tool confirms to the prospective client whether they have a claim that prima facieis eligible for compensation under the Regulation and, if so, for how much. The client is then invited to provide other relevant information on-line, including the client’s contact details, and to confirm whether they wish to instruct [B] on a “no win, no fee” basis. None of this involves manual intervention by anyone at [B].
11. If a prospective client confirms through the on-line tool that they wish to proceed with their claim, [B] sends them an e-mail to confirm receipt of the claim, notifying them of [B’s] reference number, indicating that B will verify the flight information entered, asking whether any other passengers need to be added to the claim and asking the prospective client to provide any documentation such as boarding passes, booking confirmations or correspondence with the airline. The e-mail message includes as an attachment a client publication prepared by [B] (which) sets out basic details of the flight delay compensation provisions of the Regulation, what counts as “extraordinary circumstances”, how much can be claimed relative to flight distance and length of delay and how a claim should be submitted through [B].
12. One of [B]s paralegals then manually checks the claim… to verify whether the claim has more than a 50% prospect of success. That process is usually completed within 48 hours. If the claim is accepted by [B] (it) sends a further e-mail confirming that (it) is willing to accept the case on a “no-win no-fee basis” and that, if the claim is successful, (it’s) fees will be 25% of the total compensation amount awarded to the client, plus VAT; and an administration fee of £25 per passenger, to be deducted from the compensation before B(it) pays the compensation from its client account directly to the client’s bank account. The e-mail notifies the client that, as a result of the client’s having submitted their details through the website, [B] has started working on the claim and is in the process of drafting a first letter to the airline. The e-mail also informs the client that [B]’s Terms and Conditions will follow. In a separate e-mail, [B] sends the client a link to its Terms and Conditions, requesting that the client read and then sign them electronically. The conditional fee agreement (CFA) is also sent by e-mail in a form that the client can download. The Terms and Conditions make it clear that if the airline does not accept the claim, [B] has permission from the client to issue court proceedings.
13. Having accepted a claim and confirmed the client’s instructions following the procedure outlined above, [B] sends a letter before action in a standard format to the relevant airline, referring to the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, setting out the claim details (passenger’s name, booking number, flight number, flight distance and details of delay), asking for a response within 30 days and, if the claim is admitted, for payment within 21 days of the admission. [B] requests that payment be made by the airline by cheque or by bank transfer to (it’s)s client account. The letter also asks the airline to confirm whether the statutory defence of “extraordinary circumstances” will be raised and, if so, asks that the airline clarify the exact nature of the circumstances to be relied upon and that it provide supporting disclosure. In the letter [B] reserves the right to issue proceedings and/or to apply to the court for pre-action disclosure if the airline does not respond within 30 days. The same letter may cover a single claim or multiple claims relating to the same flight. The compensation is claimed in euros, but [B] indicates to the airline that it will accept payment in sterling at a stipulated exchange rate.
14. [B] notifies the client by e-mail that it has sent the letter before action to the airline and informs them of the relevant timeframes, including next steps depending on whether the airline responds and, if so, whether it responds affirmatively or negatively. If the airline accepts the claim and makes payment without dispute, [B] simply checks that the right amount has been received, deducts its fees and pays the balance to the client from its client account.’

What the case decided.
This system was proceeding smoothly, from the lawyer’s perspective, until the airline decided that it was going to stop paying the compensation to the lawyers and pay it directly to its customers instead. This meant that the customer would get the money and the lawyer had to then collect payment direct from those customers. This had the effect of interfering with the lawyer’s business model. The Airline’s argument was that it had provided a way for unhappy customers to complain and seek compensation and that therefore it was not necessary for any customer to use lawyers until their initial claim had been rejected.
The case turned on the legal question of whether an equitable lien had arisen. If it had then the lawyer could insist upon the customer’s compensation being sent to them (see Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Co Ltd [2018] UKSC 21). That question in turn depended upon whether the service that the lawyer provided could be classed as being a ‘litigation service’ or was needed to promote access to justice. The court decided that absent a dispute no equitable could be said to have arisen, unless and until Ryanair disputed a claim.

Should lawyers be involved in consumer cases?
The claim is of general interest because it demonstrates how easy it is for large number of small claims to bundled together in a way that they can be handled in bulk and an overall level of service provided by a system that is designed to operate with a low level of human input. This means that a service can be provided using the economies of scale. Such economies however may have a downside: the easier it is to make a claim the larger the number of claims which may be made. The larger the number of claims the bigger the bill to the provider of the service- in this case the airline. Is it reasonable to allow a customer’s representative to be involved where there is an accessible online system claim system which can be used? [See here for the bigger challenges]

Does the shift in power to the consumer matter?
The claim is also interesting because it highlights the shift in power that can occur when lots of small claims are put together. This can be costly- as the new provisions for Collective Proceedings sections 47B and 47C of the Competition Act seem likely to demonstrate. Collective Proceedings promise to bring a new kind of process to the UK.