A High Court challenge has been launched against the Isle of Man's ban on no-win, no-fee arrangements for advocates.

Claimant Graeme Jones says he wants to fix a ‘broken legal system’ and argues that access to justice is a matter of public interest.

He brought a doleance claim after discovering that the 1976 Advocates Bill had repealed the offence of ‘champerty’, involving a third party funding or helping pursue litigation in exchange for a share of the proceeds.

However, the Isle of Man Law Society's advocates' practice rules prohibit lawyers from entering into contingency fee arrangements.

At a High Court hearing on Thursday, Mr Jones's advocate, Andrew Langan-Newton, described the challenge as an important public interest case.

He argued that the Law Society had acted ‘ultra vires’ - beyond its legal powers - by introducing the restriction.

The Law Society maintains that the issue is one of public policy which should ultimately be decided by Tynwald.

But Mr Langan-Newton argued that Tynwald had already made that decision when the relevant legislation was repealed in 1976.

Acting Deemster Malek said both sides agreed that access to justice and litigation funding were matters of genuine public interest, and that public policy was for Tynwald.

The dispute, he said, was whether it was in the public interest for the court to determine the issues raised.

The challenge raises questions not only about legal funding, but also about who should decide the rules governing it.

He observed that the absence of a statutory prohibition on contingency fees did not necessarily prevent the Law Society from restricting their use.

Deemster Malek said no-win, no-fee arrangements were ‘really open to abuse’ and needed careful safeguards, as applied in England and Wales.

‘It’s an extremely complicated issue which requires real protections,’ he said.

He also said he was a great believer in access to justice.

No-win, no-fee arrangements were introduced in England and Wales in the 1990s to help people pursue legal claims without needing substantial funds upfront.

Under such agreements, lawyers generally receive payment only if the case succeeds, reducing the claimant's immediate financial risk.

Solicitors may deduct a success fee from compensation awarded, typically up to 25% of damages.

But the arrangements can involve additional costs and potential financial risks.

They generally cover the claimant's own lawyer's professional fees, while someone who loses a case may still be liable for the opposing side's legal costs.

Insurance intended to protect against that liability may also be deducted from any eventual settlement.

Advertising for no-win, no-fee services has attracted regulatory scrutiny over potentially misleading claims about what consumers would pay.

Concerns have also been raised about the volume and cost of personal injury and housing disrepair claims involving public bodies in England and Wales.

Local authorities, NHS trusts and government departments can face such proceedings, with any resulting costs potentially falling on taxpayers or ratepayers.

The court heard competing arguments over whether the current Manx restriction is within the Law Society's powers, rather than reaching a final determination on its validity.