About Advantage Litigation Services
Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access and services in the field of commercial litigation and legal actions. We act as assessors & facilitators for no win, no fee commercial litigation and other related legal services. Our team have significant experience in commercial law and litigation and will assess your case on a free, no obligation basis. We'll then put you in touch with the most relevant member of our panel of solicitors, all of who can offer commercial litigation and other solutions, as quickly as we can.
Many SMEs, businesses and private individuals are unaware that they can often access expert and focussed commercial litigation services on a no win, no fee basis, or that there are often other means of funding legal action, such as third party funding.
We provide honest, pragmatic advice when assessing claims and will put you in touch with a solicitor as quickly as possible. If you require more information or would like to begin your legal action today, call or contact us now using the form opposite.
Contact Advantage Litigation
To take the first step to resolving your claim or legal dispute, fill in our enquiry form or call us on 0800 160 1298.
Advantage Litigation Services is a Trading Style of Keystone Legal Benefits Ltd.
Latest News
-
Private Healthcare Firm in £320m NHS Contract Dispute
In a move that many observers will see as a victory against the increasing ‘stealth’ privatisation of the NHS, healthcare provider Circle is set to lose its contract to the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre, despite taking legal action to get the decision changed. Circle broke new ground in 2012 by becoming the first private and for profit healthcare business to be placed in charge of running an NHS hospital. Despite this contract, at Cambridgeshire’s Hinchingbrooke hospital, returning to NHS control in 2015 due to rising financial pressures, Circle had successfully run the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre since 2008. Despite receiving high CQC ratings for patient satisfaction and having hit NHS targets for patient treatment, the firm – who claim to operate as a ‘John Lewis style social enterprise’ – lost the contract in April this year. Circle has been criticised for taking... Read More
-
Post Office liable for High Court legal costs
A recent judgement at the High Court in London has seen the Post Office being ordered to pay over £5 million in legal costs resulting from its ongoing legal dispute with former Post Office workers. The legal action was bought by 557 former Post Office workers, many of whom were sub-postmasters, who claim that they were falsely blamed for financial shortfalls at various small Post Office branches throughout the UK. The former workers claim that a software error in the Post Office’s computer system – called Horizon – was responsible for the discrepancies which resulted in many staff losing their livelihoods. The claimant group includes Tracy Felstead, a former Post Office employee from Shropshire who in 2001 was jailed for six months after being convicted of stealing £11,500, and has always protested her innocence. The first trial, which opened in November... Read More
-
Judge criticised for ‘bullying’ Litigant in Person
London’s Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge in a recent libel claim had ‘seriously transgressed’ the fundamental principle of neutrality and had ‘bullied’ a Litigant in Person (‘LIP’) whilst they were giving evidence at trial. The case in question, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors, was a libel action involving a Polish language publication called Nowy Cza. The claimant was a LIP – meaning that he was representing himself rather than using a solicitor or barrister – and was giving evidence at the trial. The trial judge, Mr Justice Jay, was accused by the LIP of making: ..frequent gratuitous interjections during the trial, hostile to the claimant, putting the claimant under enormous pressure and making it extremely difficult for him to conduct the litigation”. The LIP’s plea was upheld at the Court of Appeal on three grounds: 1. That the judge’s conclusion that... Read More
