Home > Resources > Consumer Guides

Consumer Guides on ‘No Win No Fee’

General information only - not legal advice.
Published: 15 August 2025 | Reviewed: 14 May 2026
(3-minute read)

Australian regulators consistently emphasise that “no win, no fee” does not mean “no cost”.

This page gathers independent regulatory guidance so readers can understand how these agreements operate in practice.
It does not criticise the model. In appropriate matters, such agreements can improve access to justice.
The purpose here is cost visibility.

What “No Win No Fee” Usually Means

Under a typical conditional costs agreement:

The lawyer’s professional fees are payable only if the case succeeds.
If the case does not succeed, professional fees may not be charged.
However, other costs may still arise depending on the agreement.

Regulators stress that the detail of the written costs agreement matters significantly.

1. Costs That May Still Be Payable

Even under a no win no fee agreement, clients may remain responsible for:

expert report fees
court filing fees
barrister fees
disbursements
the opponent’s legal costs if the case is unsuccessful

These liabilities depend on the wording of the agreement and applicable legislation.

Regulators encourage careful review of disbursement clauses and adverse costs exposure.

2. Success Fees (Uplifts)

Many conditional agreements include an uplift fee, often capped at 25 percent of professional fees.

This uplift compensates the lawyer for the risk of not being paid if the case fails.

The impact of uplift fees on final recovery varies case by case.

3. Judicial Example: Todorovska v Brydens [2022]

In Todorovska v Brydens [2022], the NSW Court of Appeal examined a conditional costs agreement in a personal injury matter.

The case illustrates how:

cost disclosure,
uplift calculations,
and deductions from damages

can materially affect the client’s net recovery.

The Court emphasised the importance of clarity in disclosure and proportionality in charging.

This case is often referenced in discussions about cost transparency.

4. Cost Control and Visibility

Regulatory bodies across Australia emphasise:

written disclosure before work begins
explanation of success fee calculations
transparency about disbursements
clarity about who decides when additional work is required

In many traditional arrangements, the lawyer determines:

when expert evidence is obtained
when further procedural steps are taken
how scope expands during litigation

For this reason, regulators stress that clients should understand who controls timing and scope.

Related issue: disclosure is not always control

A written costs agreement matters.
But the harder question is whether the client can stop a cost before it is incurred.

Read: Why cost disclosure does not always give control

Official Regulatory Guidance

Readers may consult:

These bodies publish consumer-facing guidance on conditional costs agreements and disclosure requirements.

Where Clean Law Fits (Structural Difference)

Clean Law does not offer no win no fee agreements.

Our model operates differently:

funds are held in escrow and released stage-by-stage with client approval
settlement and trial work are structurally separated
incentive alignment means delay does not increase our fees

This page is not intended to compare models competitively.
It exists to help readers understand how cost structures differ so informed decisions can be made.