We can help you claim
compensation following an accident
illness or injury - nationwide
Call: 0800 10 757 95
My no win, no fee research this week has taken me into the realms of inane daytime TV - not because Richard or Judy has met with an unfortunate personal injury or due to the discovery of a cure for tinnitus by a TV doctor who will become the next Alexander Fleming. No, the customary google search for no win no fee that I carry out with metronomic regularity, today returned a piece about a quiz show of the early noughties.
Hosted by Paul Ross - Jonathan Ross's elder and possibly cheaper to hire brother – the BBC show wittily entitled No Win No Fee pitted twelve contestants against each other to win a daily prize of £4,000. And, to cut a convoluted quiz premise short, in each round contestant 1 was asked to judge whether their chosen opposition, contestant 2, would answer a given question correctly or incorrectly. A lot of pseudo psychoanalysis went on in the form of Mr Ross gauging how confident the other competitor was, plenty of misleading judgement was proffered regarding body language and judgement of the contestants' knowledge and misdemeanour, and then the answer was given.
Depending on the outcomes of that answer and the guessing as to whether or not the nominated contestant would get the question right or wrong, gradually the contestants would be whittled down to just two who would then play the endgame for the daily prize.
However, (and this is where we get to the oh-so-droll use of no win no fee) if either of the combatants actually got the winning scenario of question answering to the point where they had guessed right and the other contestant had not been able to outwit them then they walked away with the prize which was actually…gasp… Paul Ross's fee for the show.
Ho, ho, ho. How funny that if the contestant won then the host didn't get paid… But hang on a minute because that actually means the title is wrong. If the contestant won then the host got no fee. So, actually if there was no win he did get his fee. It's a tad confusing isn't it and not least a pretty boring format for a show which ran for three series and broadcast a total of 70 episodes.
In fact, making a no win, no fee claim for compensation in the legal world is a lot more straightforward, because if you don't win your case, i.e, the judge does not award you damages, you are not charged legal costs and fees. And funnily enough, if you do win, a true cost free service will see that you are not charged either. You will receive 100 percent compensation from a personal injury claim and the totally scrupulous no win no fee lawyer will never charge you a penny (except in the complex legal area of medical negligence where certain charges may be required to initiate the claim).
So, those people at Hat Trick, the production company that took No Win No Fee to our screens, should be a little more aware of the true no win, no fee system at work in a legal sense and not try to be clever with linguistics they apparently don't understand.
