Regina v Brighton and Hove Council ex parte Nacion: CA 1 Feb 1999

[1999] EWCA Civ 687
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRegina v Brighton and Hove Council ex parte Nacion (2) CA 1-Feb-1999
The applicant sought review of a decision not to offer him temporary accomodation pending an appeal following a review of a refusal to offer him emergency accomodation. He had become homeless as a result of imprisonment.
Held: The section gave . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2021; Ref: scu.145602

Harrison v Dace: CA 13 Oct 1998

Application for leave to appeal in a boundary dispute: ‘In my view it is a misuse of legal aid and at a time when we are being told that deserving people are not getting legal aid, because of the cost to the public of excessive public money being used for litigation, it is peculiarly sad to find that it should have been spent on this rather arid exercise with which this court is being asked to deal today.’
Butler-Sloss LJ
[1998] EWCA Civ 1524
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 May 2021; Ref: scu.145003

Regina (Mudie and Another) v Dover Magistrates’ Court and Another: CA 4 Feb 2003

The applicants wished to challenge the confiscation of their goods by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on their return to Dover. They appealed the refusal of Legal Aid.
Held: The Convention guaranteed the right to legal assistance for someone charged with a criminal offence and who could not afford representation, but these condemnation proceedings were civil not criminal. The claimants argued that a finding against them involved a finding of reprehensible behaviour (Engel), but this mistook the court’s function which was to decide whether the goods were liable to seizure.
Phillips of Worth Matravers, MR, Brooke, Laws LJJ
Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 237, [2003] QB 1238, [2003] 2 WLR 1344
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 12(2), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Sch 3 para 6, European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGoldsmith and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise QBD 7-Jun-2001
The applicants were stopped after bringing into the country 26 kilos of tobacco, without declaring it. The customs applied for an order condemning the tobacco. The applicants argued that the proceedings were, in effect, criminal proceedings, and . .
CitedEngel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
engel_netherlandsECHR1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .

Cited by:
CitedGora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
gora_custCA2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2021; Ref: scu.178991

Regina v The Law Society, Ex parte Nicholson: 22 Feb 1985

A legal aid committee could not refuse legal aid under this provision solely on the ground that the applicant had acquired the cause of action by assignment from an insolvent company, without having regard to the other circumstances of the case.
Hodgson J
Unreported, 22 February 1985
Legal Aid Act 1988 15(3)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRegina v Legal Aid Board, ex parte Nicholson QBD 24-Jun-1994
A Legal Aid certificate may be amended after judgment had been given to name a new solicitor. . .

Cited by:
See AlsoRegina v Legal Aid Board, ex parte Nicholson QBD 24-Jun-1994
A Legal Aid certificate may be amended after judgment had been given to name a new solicitor. . .
CitedNorglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken-Redac HL 1-Dec-1997
An assignment of a cause of action by a company in liquidation was valid, even though the dominant purpose was to avoid having to give security for costs, and to get legal aid. In dismissing the argument that the transactions were a device to defeat . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2021; Ref: scu.223198

Carr v Boxall: 1960

Cross J
[1960] 1 WLR 314
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLockley v National Blood Transfusion Service CA 1992
There was an interlocutory dispute over the granting of an extension of time for service of the defence. The legally aided plaintiff challenged the costs orders made by the district registrar and the judge. Each ordered that the costs be the . .
Per IncuriamSonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2021; Ref: scu.216497

Levy v Legal Aid Board: ChD 24 Feb 2000

Although an order for costs might in some circumstances not be provable in an insolvency, that did not prevent a statutory demand based upon that debt. Whether it was provable would become clear in the later insolvency proceedings. The court had a discretion to found a petition on an unproveable debt where there were special circumstances such as, for example other debts which were provable.
Gazette 24-Feb-2000, Gazette 16-Mar-2000
Insolvency Rules 1986/1925 12 3 (2) (a)
England and Wales

Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.83037

Main, Regina (on the Application of) v Minister for Legal Aid: Admn 2 Apr 2007

The applicants were relatives of victims of a rail accident. They challenged the refusal of legal aid for representation at the coroners inquest.
Held: Judicial review was granted. The minister’s decision was flawed in that he had failed to allow for the fact that the issues to be aired in the cases were both of wide public interest and of potential benefit for the public as a whole, and that the interetss of those appearing before the inquest would be divergent.
Owen J
[2007] EWHC 742 (Admin), Times 09-May-2007
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 2
England and Wales

Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.251161

Malekout v Medical Sickness Annuity and Life Assurance Society Limited: CA 21 May 1998

The plaintiff sought to appeal against a stay of his action so that it could be referred to arbitration. His claim was under insurance policies containing clauses providing for arbitration of disputes.
Held: The judge had failed to take account of the fact that the claimant was receiving income support as an indication of his lack of funds. Since a payment under the policies would have put him in funds, the fact of non-payment was connected to his present inability to fund an action, and nor was it correct to have dismissed the plaintiff’s need for assistance in an arbitration where technical legal and medical issues would arise.
[1998] EWCA Civ 872
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedTrustee of Property of Andrews v Brock Buildings (Kessingland) Limited CA 21-Nov-1996
An impecunious plaintiff who resisted an application to stay proceedings in order to allow an arbitration can be required to show the cause of his inability to fund the action. . .
CitedFakes v Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited 1973
The plaintiff resisted an application for a stay of his action for an arbitration on the basis that his lack of funds would make it impossible to take part in an arbitration. . .
CitedConnelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and others HL 24-Jul-1997
The availability of legal aid to a party is not part of criteria for choosing jurisdiction save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goff discussed the Spiliada case: ‘the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2021; Ref: scu.144351

AK and L v Croatia: ECHR 8 Jan 2013

ECHR Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Authorities’ failure to ensure legal representation of mentally disabled applicant in proceedings divesting her of parental rights and to inform her of adoption proceedings in respect of her son: violation
Facts – The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant L., who was born in 2008. Soon after his birth, L. was placed, with his mother’s consent, in a foster family in another town, on the grounds that his mother had no income and lived in a dilapidated property without heating. In May 2010 the first applicant was divested of her parental rights in respect of L., on the grounds that she had a mild mental disability and was not able to provide proper care to him. She applied for legal aid to lodge an appeal, but was only assigned a lawyer after the time-limit for appealing had expired. In October 2010 her lawyer applied to a municipal court for an order restoring the first applicant’s parental rights, but the application was dismissed because in the meantime L. had been adopted by third parties. The first applicant was not a party to the adoption proceedings and was not informed of them, as her consent was not needed because she had been divested of her parental rights.
Law – Article 8
(a) Standing of the first applicant to act on behalf of L. – In respect of any issues concerning the facts after the adoption became final, L.’s only representatives under national law were his adoptive parents. However, all issues concerning the severing of his ties with his biological mother before his adoption should be examined by the Court. It was in principle in a child’s interest to preserve its ties with its biological parents, save where weighty reasons existed to justify severing them. In the present proceedings, owing to his tender age, L. was not in a position to represent his interests. The first applicant was the only person able to argue on his behalf that severing the ties between them had also affected L.’s right to respect for his family life. The Government’s objection as regards the locus standi of the first applicant to represent L. in the proceedings before the Court had to be dismissed.
(b) Applicability – Although the child had been placed in a foster family soon after birth, the first applicant had continued to visit him. In the Court’s view there existed a bond between the first applicant and her son that amounted to ‘family life’. Article 8 was therefore applicable.
(c) Merits – The measures taken by the State amounted to interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life. The interference had a basis in domestic law and had been aimed at protecting the best interests of the child. The Court was not called upon to determine whether the adoption of the first applicant’s child was justified as such. Nor did it have to rule on the compliance with Article 8 of legislation which did not allow a parent divested of parental rights to participate in the adoption proceedings. Instead, the Court examined whether sufficient safeguards for the protection of the applicants’ private and family life had been provided at every stage of the process. The domestic legislation provided adequate safeguards as regards the interests of parents and their children in proceedings. However, despite the legal requirement and the authorities’ findings that the first applicant suffered from a mild mental disability, she had not been represented by a lawyer in the proceedings divesting her of parental rights. Given that she could not properly understand the full legal effect of such proceedings and adequately argue her case and given the importance of such proceedings for her right to respect for her family life, the national authorities should have ensured that the interests of both the first applicant and L. were adequately protected, in particular from the standpoint of preserving ties between them. While the Court could accept that the consent of the first applicant, who had been divested of her parental rights, was not necessary in the adoption proceedings, it nevertheless considered that where, as in Croatia, a national system allowed for parental rights to be restored, it was indispensable that a parent be given an opportunity to exercise that right before the child was put up for adoption. However, by not informing the first applicant about the adoption proceedings the national authorities had deprived her of the opportunity to seek restoration of her parental rights before the ties between her and her son had been finally severed by his adoption. She had thus been prevented from enjoying her right guaranteed by domestic law and had not been sufficiently involved in the decision-making process.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 12,500 to the first applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
37956/11 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 290
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8-1

Updated: 01 May 2021; Ref: scu.472432

Regina v Chester and North Wales Legal Aid Area Office (No 12) ex parte Floods of Queensferry Limited: CA 18 Dec 1997

A company was not entitled to legal aid unless it was clearly acting in a fiduciary capacity; that the assignment of an action is invalid is insufficient to warrant a grant.
Times 26-Dec-1997, Gazette 28-Jan-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 3043
Legal Aid Act 1974 2(10)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Chester and North Wales Legal Aid Area Office Ex Parte Floods of Queensbury Ltd QBD 7-Nov-1997
It was possible for a body to apply for legal aid but only if it was genuinely acting in a fiduciary capacity as trustee, not mere contractual representative. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2021; Ref: scu.143442

Lozinski v Ross: CA 15 Jan 1998

The defendant sought a stay of execution. There had been a partnership between the parties resulting in protracted litigation. As a result of costs orders already made there could be no financial benefit to the defendant in pursuing her case, and her legal aid had been withdrawn.
Held: The defendant had already failed to comply with unless orders, and her action had no prospect of success. Stay refused.
Lord Justice Brooke
[1998] EWCA Civ 27
England and Wales

Updated: 30 April 2021; Ref: scu.143505

Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Admn 4 Feb 2013

The claimant was facing trial in Bali which would eventually lead to a sentence of death. She complained of inadequate legal assistance before and at the trial. She had been represented by a local lawyer, paid with funds (andpound;5,000) raised by her sister, but who (according to her) spoke little English and had no experience of capital defence litigation. Following her conviction, and by the time of the judicial review application, the consulate had put her in touch with Mr Agus, a local lawyer. He was the British Ambassador’s honorary legal adviser and was also a human rights specialist, who had acted in previous death penalty cases. He was willing to act for the appellant on a pro bono basis, subject to payment of his expenses, estimated at some andpound;2,600. She challenged the refusal of the respondent to provide that sum, both under common law and human rights law.
Held: The request was refused.
Gloster J said: ‘In my judgment it is manifestly clear on the facts of this case, that, at all relevant times, from the moment she was arrested, throughout the time she was in custody, throughout the trial process, and after her conviction when held in prison, the claimant was and remains under the authority and control of the Indonesian state and relevant criminal authorities. The mere fact that the consular officials provided her with advice and support, and that the [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] engaged in diplomatic representations, cannot be regarded as any kind of exertion of authority or control by agents of the United Kingdom so as to engage its responsibilities under the Convention.’
Gloster, Nicola Davies JJ
[2013] EWHC 168 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedZagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others Admn 29-Nov-2010
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice . .
CitedAl-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
(Grand Chamber) The exercise of jurisdiction, which is a threshold condition, is a necessary condition for a contracting state to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the . .
CitedBankovic v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-2001
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own . .
CitedX v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-1977
(Commission) The British court had ordered a Jordanian father to return his daughter to England. The English mother contacted the British consulate in Amman asking it to ‘obtain the custody of her daughter from the Jordanian Court’. The Consulate . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromSandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 22-May-2013
The appellant, a British national and European citizen was in prison in Bali convicted of a criminal charge for which she might face the death penalty. Having insufficient funds she sought legal assistance from the respondent for hr appeal, and now . .
At AdminSandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 16-Jul-2014
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2021; Ref: scu.470811

Procurator Fiscal, Fort William v Mclean and Another: HCJ 11 Aug 2000

A rule which restricted the amount payable to a defendant to cover his legal fees in defending a case brought against him to pounds 550.00 was not an infringement of his human rights. To demonstrate a breach of the right to a fair trial, the defendant must show not only prejudice, but also some material disadvantage involving an actual and material risk of harm to his defence.
Times 11-Aug-2000
Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed payments)(Scotland) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 491)
Scotland

Updated: 20 April 2021; Ref: scu.85053

Oliver Fisher (A Firm) v Legal Services Commission: Admn 10 May 2002

Gilliatt A solicitors’ firm had been paid for work done in a case by the Legal Services Commission. The LSC had a right to a statutory charge against a property which had been preserved as a result of the proceedings. The solicitors should have reported to the LSC that they had recovered the property by December 1999. In February 2000 the firm applied to have the legal aid certificate discharged. It was not until August 2000 that they made the report to the LSC about the recovery of property giving rise to the statutory charge. The LSC did not actually receive the report until mid September. The LSC then applied to register a caution against the property. In the meantime the litigant had put the property on the market and a prospective purchaser had lodged an official search with the land registry. The upshot was that the purchaser’s application to register title had priority over the LSC’s application to register a charge. The property was transferred to the purchasers. By the time the LSC were told their charge had not been registered, the solicitors had been paid and the litigant had been paid by the purchaser. The LSC then tried to claw back the money paid out for costs from other sums claimed by the solicitors in respect of different cases.
Held: Despite the fact that the solicitors had not done everything they should have done promptly, there was no actual power, on a construction of the regulations on the part of the LSC to take back the money.
Scott Baker J said: ‘[Counsel for the Commission] submits that . . Section 4(1)(b) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 gives the defendants a statutory power to operate a running account. This however does not in my judgment give a right to relocate or move money that has been earned and paid in case ‘A’ to case ‘B’ or to recoup money.’
Mr Justice Scott Baker
[2002] EWHC 1017 (Admin)
Bailii
Legal Aid Act 1988 4(1)(b)
England and Wales

Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.172254

Rayner v The Lord Chancellor: CA 9 Nov 2015

The claimant had been a defendant in an action. He came to be awarded substantial damages and costs, but the legally aided claimant was unlikely ever to be able to pay, and he sought payment of his costs under the Regulations. The respondent said that costs in respect of a period between the transfer of the legal id order from one firm to another was not recoverable.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
McCombe, Gloster, Underhill LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1124
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRayner v The Lord Chancellor ChD 2-Dec-2013
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.554532

Rayner v The Lord Chancellor: ChD 2 Dec 2013

Nicholas Strauss QC sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division
[2013] WLR(D) 467, [2013] EWHC 3878 (Ch), [2014] 1 Costs LR 59, [2014] 1 WLR 677
Bailii, WLRD
Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) Regulations 2000 5(4)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRayner v The Lord Chancellor CA 9-Nov-2015
The claimant had been a defendant in an action. He came to be awarded substantial damages and costs, but the legally aided claimant was unlikely ever to be able to pay, and he sought payment of his costs under the Regulations. The respondent said . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.522671

In Re O (A Minor) (Costs:Liability of Legal Aid Board); orse Re O (A Minor) (Legal Aid Costs): CA 25 Nov 1996

Grandparents should have conceded at an early stage in the Court of Appeal that an order made by the judge in proceedings relating to their grandchild had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The court considered the procedures for applying for costs for an unassisted party in children proceedings.
Times 25-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 936, [1997] 1 FCR 159
Legal Aid Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedD and D W v Portsmouth Hospital NHS; in re W (A Child) CA 3-May-2006
The claimants had sought court orders against the hospital to secure continuing life-supporting treatment for their daughter who had been born very severely disabled. The Trust now sought their costs from the various actions.
Held: The parents . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.82085

DS and Others (Children): FD 31 May 2012

The court gave guidance on legal aid arrangement for the funding of supporting expert evidence in care applications.
Held: The court gave the following guidance: ‘i) The words ‘the cost thereof is deemed to be a necessary and proper disbursement on [a named individual’s] public funding certificate’ (or words to equivalent effect) should no longer be used when the court orders a report from an expert. The words do not bind the LSC or, for that matter anybody else. In addition, there must be doubt about the court’s power to make such an order. It is, in my judgment, far better to follow the words of the Regulations, particularly if the court is being asked to approve rates in excess of those allowed by the Funding Order. A copy of such an order is attached at the end of this judgment.
ii) The test for expert evidence will shortly import the word ‘necessary’. The question which the court will have to ask itself is whether or not the report of the expert is necessary for the resolution of the case. FPR rule 25.1 will shortly be amended to insert the word ‘necessary’ for ‘reasonably required’ and there will be a new Practice Direction.
iii) It is the court which makes the order for the instruction of an expert, and this responsibility neither can nor should be delegated to the parties. It is of the essence of good case management that the court should identify the issues on which it wants the expert to report. It would thus be helpful and important for the tribunal to be able to say – if it is the case and the hard pressed Tribunal with a long list has had the time – that it has read all the (relevant) papers.
iv) If the court takes the view that an expert’s report is necessary for the resolution of the case, it should say so, and give its reasons. This can be done by a preamble to the order, or by a short judgment, delivered at dictation speed or inserted by the parties with the judge’s approval. I have considered this point carefully, and have come to the conclusion that this does not impose an undue burden either on the court or the profession.
v) There is no substitute for reasons. A consent order is still an order of the court: it is a judicial decision and must be supported by reasons. Equally, a decision by the LSC is a decision. It too should be supported by reasons.
vi) ‘Reasons’ in circumstances such as these need not be lengthy or elaborate. They must, however, explain to anyone reading them why the decision maker has reached the conclusion he or she has particularly if the expert is seeking to be paid at rates which are higher than those set out in the table in Schedule 6 of the Funding Order
vii) Speed is of the essence in proceedings relating to children. An application for prior authority must be made at the earliest opportunity and, once again, must be carefully drafted and supported by reasons.
viii) By like token, it behoves the LSC to deal with such applications promptly and, particularly if the application is being refused, or only granted to a limited extent, to give its reasons for its decision. Once again, the reasons can be concise. Of course the solicitor seeking prior authority can go ahead regardless, and instruct the expert at the rates the expert demands, but such a suggestion, in reality, is unreal. The expert’s contract is with the solicitor, and if he or she does not recover the expert’s costs from the LSC, it is the solicitor who is liable. Given the exiguous rates of remuneration, this is a risk no solicitor is willing to take, particularly where the client is impecunious.
ix) Similar considerations to those set out above apply to any challenge to the LSC’s ruling.
x) If a case is urgent, it should be so marked and the reasons for its urgency explained.
xi) Courts should familiarise themselves with Part 25 of the FPR and with Practice Direction 25A which supplements it. Specifically, they should be aware of paragraph 4.3(h) or its equivalent when amended which provides that the person wishing to instruct an expert must explain to the court why the expert evidence proposed cannot be given by Social Services undertaking a core assessment or by the Children’s Guardian in accordance with their respective statutory duties. The Rule and the Practice Direction are being revised to make them (it is to be hoped) more practical and ‘user friendly’. Practitioners should look out, in due course, for the amendments. ‘
Sir Nicholas Wall P
[2012] EWHC 1442 (Fam), [2012] 1 WLR 3098, [2012] Fam Law 1078
Bailii
Citing:
EndorsedCalderdale Metropolitan Borough Council v S and Another FD 18-Oct-2004
An expert’s report was required for the purposes of care proceedings. The court ordered that the cost be paid as to half by the local authority, where there were three other parties. The authority appealed.
Held: The authority’s appeal was . .

Cited by:
CitedT, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Aid Agency and Others Admn 26-Apr-2013
In care proceedings, an order had been made for the preparation of an expert report. The legally aided children applied to the defendant for assistance. It allowed a sum less than the minimum figure set by the expert company as a fee for doing the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 April 2021; Ref: scu.460530

Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken Redac (Uk) Ltd: CA 5 Apr 1996

The assignment of a debt by a company in liquidation to a significant shareholder, in order to allow him to make an application for legal aid, and to avoid having to give security for costs and to allow the action to proceed was not unlawful, but the Legal Aid Board should be careful in supporting such contrived litigation.
Lord Justice Staughton, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Thorpe
Gazette 01-May-1996, Times 05-Apr-1996
Law of Property Act 1925 136(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedJoyce v Sengupta and Another CA 31-Jul-1992
The defendant published an article accusing the plaintiff of theft. Not having funds to launch a claim in libel, the plaintiff obtained legal aid to claim in malicious falsehood. She now appealed against a strike out of that claim.
Held: A . .
AppliedStein v Blake HL 18-May-1995
Where A and B each have claims against each other and A is insolvent, the common amount is set off, and the net difference remains as a debt due.
Hoffmann L said: ‘It is a matter of common occurrence for an individual to become insolvent while . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromNorglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken-Redac HL 1-Dec-1997
An assignment of a cause of action by a company in liquidation was valid, even though the dominant purpose was to avoid having to give security for costs, and to get legal aid. In dismissing the argument that the transactions were a device to defeat . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 April 2021; Ref: scu.79137

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte Law Society: CA 11 Aug 1993

Lord Chancellor is free to impose a fee scheme if it accords with the words of the Act. The standard fees regulations for magistrates Courts works are within the Lord Chancellor’s powers.
Times 11-Aug-1993, Independent 24-Sep-1993
Legal Aid Act 1988 34
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (1) QBD 4-May-1993
The introduction of a Standard Criminal Legal Aid fees regime was within the Lord Chancellor’s proper range of discretion, even without consultation with the Law Society.
The meaning of ‘carried entering UK’ can include clothing being worn, but . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.87216

Middleton v Middleton: CA 10 Jan 1994

Legal Aid Act gives no power to extend time for filing affidavit under regulations.
Ind Summary 10-Jan-1994
Legal Aid Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMiddleton v Middleton FD 4-Jun-1993
The court can extend the time for filing an affidavit re an order for costs against the Legal Aid Board. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toMiddleton v Middleton FD 4-Jun-1993
The court can extend the time for filing an affidavit re an order for costs against the Legal Aid Board. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.83699

Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board: CA 21 Oct 1994

The standard practice of not awarding costs in children cases overrides the possibility of making a hardship order from Landlord. Costs orders are unusual in custody disputes and no order was to be made against the Legal Aid Board in favour of an unassisted party.
Neill LJ said: ‘In the last decade, however, it has become the general practice in proceedings relating to the custody and care and control of children to make no order as to the costs of the proceedings except in exceptional circumstances’, but it was ‘unnecessary and undesirable to try to limit or place into rigid categories the cases which a court might regard as suitable for such an award’.
Neill LJ
Times 28-Oct-1994, Independent 21-Oct-1994, [1995] 1 FLR 259
Legal Aid Act 1988 18(4)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
CitedRe S (A Child) SC 25-Mar-2015
The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.82702

Leeds City Council v Price and Others: CA 2 Feb 2012

The council had sought repossession of land occupied by the defendant gypsies. The council won its case and an order for costs in the House of Lords. The defendants had been legally aided, and the council had sought payment by the Community Legal Services Fund.
Aikens, Tomplinson LJJ, Dame Janet Smith
[2012] EWCA Civ 59
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 11
England and Wales

Updated: 21 March 2021; Ref: scu.450532

Lord Chancellor v Ian Henery Solicitors Ltd: QBD 8 Dec 2011

The court heard a challenge to arrangements within the graduated fees scheme for payment of defence lawyers, and in particular ‘when does a trial begin?’ and whether a case should be paid as a ‘trial’ or as a ‘cracked trial’. The trial had been arranged and brought on, but after the jury was sworn, the judge allowed additional counts, and eventually the case was stood down. Under the payments scheme the arrangements were more lucrative to an advocate if the trial was said to be cracked, but to litigators if not.
Spencer J
[2011] EWHC 3246 (QB)
Bailii
Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007
Citing:
CitedLord Chancellor v Rees and others QBD 19-Dec-2008
Sir Charles Gray considered an appeal against the findings of a costs judge, saying: ‘it appears to me that it is incumbent on the Lord Chancellor in any appeal to the High Court to identify some question of law or principle which arises, since the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 March 2021; Ref: scu.449897

Legal Services Commission v Henthorn: CA 30 Nov 2011

The Commission sought to recover what it said were payments made on account to the respondent barrister, but only after many years had passed. The Commission argued that time only began to run once it requested repayment.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In general, time would run from the earlier date: ‘Save where it is the essence of the arrangement between the parties that a sum is not payable until demanded (e.g. a loan expressly or impliedly repayable on demand), it appears to me that clear words would normally be required before a contract should be held to give a potential or actual creditor complete control over when time starts running against him, as it is such an unlikely arrangement for an actual or potential debtor to have agreed.’, but in this context, ‘time did not begin to run against the Commission in respect of claims falling within regulation 100(8) until the assessment there referred to had taken place.’
Lord Neuberger MR said: ‘A person who wished to obtain legal representation had to be granted a legal aid certificate (‘a certificate’) and, once it was granted, he or she became an ‘assisted person’. An assisted person was, at least in principle, free to choose a solicitor, who was to be subject to the same obligations to the assisted client as would have applied had the instructions been private save for any specific exception provided for by the statutory scheme – see section 32 of the 1988 Act. One way in which the contractual relationship between solicitor and client was altered by the grant of legal aid was under section 9(5) of the 1988 Act, which provided that the assisted person was not required to pay his or her solicitor any charge or fee, save for any contribution provided for in the Regulations. Similarly, under section 31(3), the solicitor was not entitled to take any payment in respect of that representation other than as paid by the Commission or as authorised by the 1988 Act or by the Regulations. . .
The Commission could, and usually did, impose conditions limiting the ambit of the certificate and requiring further approval before any limitation could be amended. Costs incurred by an assisted person’s legal representatives in those cases could only be paid for out of the Legal Aid Fund (‘the fund’) if they had been incurred during the currency of a valid certificate.’
Neuberger MR, Lewison LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley
[2011] EWCA Civ 1415, [2011] NPC 123, [2012] 1 Costs LR 169, [2012] 2 All ER 439, [2012] 1 WLR 1173
Bailii
Legal Aid Act 1988, Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBlake v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Sep-2006
The claimant had been a Russian spy whilst in British Intelligence, escaping from prison and fleeing to Russia in 1966. He now complained that an action by the respondent government to seek to recover royalties from a book had been so extended in . .
Appeal fromLegal Services Commission v Henthorn QBD 4-Feb-2011
lsc_henthornQBD11
The claimant sought to recover overpayments said to have been made to the defendant barrister in the early 1990s. Interim payments on account had been made, but these were not followed by final accounts. The defendant, now retired, said that the . .
CitedCentral Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corporation HL 1963
Under the 1947 Act, the assets of electricity undertakings were transferred to to electricity boards. Property held by local authorities as authorised undertakers should, on vesting day, vest in the relevant board. A question arose as to whether . .
CitedSwansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
CitedLegal Services Commission v Rasool CA 5-Mar-2008
The defendant had in 1993 obtained legal aid. Work was done but the certificate was then revoked. The Commission sought repayment of the sums paid on account to his solicitors. He replied that the claim was out of time. The Commission argued that . .
CitedCoburn v Colledge CA 1897
A solicitor commenced an action on June 12th, 1896 for his fees for work which had been completed on May 30th 1889.
Held: A period of limitation runs from the date on which the ingredients of the cause of action are complete. The statute of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 March 2021; Ref: scu.449043

The Lord Chancellor v Alexander Johnson and Co Solicitors and Another: QBD 29 Jul 2011

The court was asked whether the respondents, a firm of solicitors and a barrister, are in respect of acting on behalf of Aaron Phillips in certain criminal proceedings entitled to fees payable under the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme (GFS) or under the Very High Costs Cases (VHCC) scheme. The issue involves a point of interpretation of the Criminal Defence Services (Funding) Order 2007 as amended.
Davis J
[2011] EWHC 2113 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.442461

JB DB and JWDWB v The Authority Reporter for Edinburgh: SCS 22 Jun 2011

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 39, [2011] CSIH 39, 2012 SCLR 187, 2011 Fam LR 96, 2012 SC 23, 2011 SLT 1194, 2011 GWD 22-510
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedNJDB v JEG and Another SC 23-May-2012
Mother and father disputed whether the father should be allowed contact with their child S. Court orders had been made for residential and non-residential contact, but there were difficulties and the order for contact was reversed on the basis that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 March 2021; Ref: scu.441328

Carse v Carse: QBNI 19 Dec 2000

‘Applications for review of Taxing Master’s decisions given in the two separate sets of proceedings. In both cases the petitioners were legally aided parties whose costs fell to be taxed under the relevant provisions. In both sets of proceedings the solicitors and counsel are aggrieved by the Taxing Master’s decisions which significantly reduced the solicitors’ costs and counsel’s fees allowed in respect of work carried out in those proceedings.’
Girvan J
[2000] NIQB 62
Bailii
Northern Ireland

Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.202123

Legal Services Commission v Pugh (Charges and Charging Orders): LRA 21 Dec 2007

LRA Claimant with legal aid obtains a partial right of way to her property in settlement of a dispute as to her rights of access. Legal Services Commission not entitled to charge over her property under section 10(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
[2007] EWLandRA 2006 – 1672
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 10(7)
England and Wales

Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.429581

Legal Services Commission v Humberstone, Regina (On The Application of): CA 21 Dec 2010

Appeal against successful judicial review of refusal of legal aid for mother of deceased at inquest.
Held: ‘article 2 will be engaged in the much narrower range of cases where there is at least an arguable case that the state has been in breach of its substantive duty to protect life; in such cases the obligation is proactively to initiate a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the death.’
Maurice Kay VP CA, Smith, Leveson LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1479, [2011] 1 WLR 1460, (2011) 118 BMLR 79, [2010] Inquest LR 221, [2011] Med LR 56, [2011] HRLR 12, [2011] ACD 51, [2011] UKHRR 8
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 6, European Convention on Human Rights 82
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHumberstone, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Commission Admn 13-Apr-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the Defendant not to recommend that her application for public funding for representation at the inquest enquiring into the death of her son be granted. . .

Cited by:
CitedLetts, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and Another Admn 20-Feb-2015
Letts_lcAdmn201502
Application for judicial review concerning the criteria applied by the Legal Aid Agency to determine whether relatives of a deceased should be granted legal aid for representation at an inquest into a death which has arisen in circumstances which . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.427369

Director of Legal Aid Casework, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court At Southwark: Admn 9 Feb 2021

A question of the proper interpretation of Regulation 26 of the 2013 Regulations and, subject to that question of interpretation, second, the proper application of that Regulation to the circumstances of this particular case.
[2021] EWHC 397 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Legal Aid (Contribution Orders) Regulations 2013
England and Wales

Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.658884

Brawley v Marczynski and Another: CA 21 Oct 2002

The defendants appealed an award of costs on an indemnity basis against them in the favour of a legally aided claimant.
Held: Indemnity costs were often intended to indicate disapproval of a party’s behaviour in an action, and were awarded in several and discretionary circumstances. It was not an objection of principle to say that a legally aided litigant would not recover the difference between standard and indemnity costs, and that therefore indemnity costs should not be awarded in favour of a legally aided claimant. Appeal refused.
Aldous, Tuckey, Longmore LLJ
[2003] 1 WLR 813, Times 07-Nov-2002, Gazette 09-Jan-2003, Gazette 16-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1453, [2003] 3 Costs LR 325, [2003] CP Rep 15, [2002] 4 All ER 1067, [2003] CPLR 241
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedFrary v Frary CA 1993
A spouse’s wealthy cohabitant, who had been ordered to produce evidence not just as to the support provided by her (or him) to the spouse but as to her (or his) overall resources may be able successfully to invoke the courts jurisdiction to protect . .
CitedBurgess v Burgess CA 11-Nov-1996
. .
CitedKiam v MGN Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably . .
CitedReid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
reidminty_taylorCA2002
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .

Cited by:
CitedSargeant, and Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited ChD 8-Jun-2004
The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected.
Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 February 2021; Ref: scu.177722

Humberstone, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Commission: Admn 13 Apr 2010

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the Defendant not to recommend that her application for public funding for representation at the inquest enquiring into the death of her son be granted.
Hickinbottom J
[2010] EWHC 760 (Admin), [2010] ACD 51, [2010] Inquest LR 64
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 6
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromLegal Services Commission v Humberstone, Regina (On The Application of) CA 21-Dec-2010
Appeal against successful judicial review of refusal of legal aid for mother of deceased at inquest.
Held: ‘article 2 will be engaged in the much narrower range of cases where there is at least an arguable case that the state has been in . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408638

Regina v Lea (Attorney-General’s Reference No 82 of 2000); Regina v Shatwell: CACD 28 Jan 2002

The defendants had been tried in cases where the prosecution had employed leading counsel. The defendants had been refused similar representation. They complained that this created an inequality of arms, and an unfair trial under Human Rights law. The question also arose as to the maximum sentence allowable after a re-trial ordered by the Court of Appeal.
Held: There was no interference with the right to a fair trial. The defendant had been properly and competently represented. As to sentence, the defendant had been first convicted, and sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment. The conviction was set aside and a re-trial ordered. The Act said that no greater sentence could be imposed on a second trial than on the first, but the Crown appealed the sentence as unduly lenient. Though cumbersome, the right procedure was for the Crown to make such an appeal on the first conviction. That could be heard before the appeal against conviction. The position on any subsequent trial would then be safeguarded.
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Pitchford
Times 28-Feb-2002
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6, Criminal Justice Act 1988 36
England and Wales

Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.167670

Regina v Oates: CACD 25 Apr 2002

The applicant had sought and been refused legal aid to support legal representation at a full oral hearing on her renewed application for leave to appeal against her conviction. She argued that the refusal of legal aid denied her human rights.
Held: The legal aid system assisted her at trial, on advice with regard to an appeal, and on the first written application for leave to appeal. Where that application had been refused, there was nothing in human rights law to require legal aid to be extended further.
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice McKinnon and Mr Justice Pool
Times 20-May-2002, Gazette 30-May-2002
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 31, European Convention on Human Rights 6.3(c)
England and Wales

Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.171184

Gudanaviciene and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework and Others: CA 15 Dec 2014

Article 8 requires that an appeal against a deportation order by reference to it should be effective. The court
(a) cited at para 65 the decision of the ECtHR in W v United Kingdom (1988) 10 EHRR 29, para 64, to the effect that article 8 required that parents who had sought contact with a child in care should have been involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to provide the requisite protection of their interests;
(b) held at para 69 that the same requirement applied to article 8 claims by immigrants; and
(c) concluded at para 70 that it amounted to a requirement that their access to the tribunal should be effective.
Lord Dyson MR, Richards, Sullivan LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1622, [2015] 1 WLR 2247, [2014] WLR(D) 547, [2015] 3 All ER 827
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromGudanaviciene and Others v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Another Admn 13-Jun-2014
The six claimants challenged the refusal of the Director of Legal Aid Casework to grant legal aid to the claimants. The cases raise common issues concerning the availability of legal aid in immigration cases under Section 10 of the 2012 Act. . .

Cited by:
CitedKiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.539982

Gudanaviciene and Others v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Another: Admn 13 Jun 2014

The six claimants challenged the refusal of the Director of Legal Aid Casework to grant legal aid to the claimants. The cases raise common issues concerning the availability of legal aid in immigration cases under Section 10 of the 2012 Act.
Collins J
[2014] EWHC 1840 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 266
Bailii, WLRD
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 10
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromGudanaviciene and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework and Others CA 15-Dec-2014
Article 8 requires that an appeal against a deportation order by reference to it should be effective. The court
(a) cited at para 65 the decision of the ECtHR in W v United Kingdom (1988) 10 EHRR 29, para 64, to the effect that article 8 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.526584

Stein v Blake: HL 18 May 1995

Where A and B each have claims against each other and A is insolvent, the common amount is set off, and the net difference remains as a debt due.
Hoffmann L said: ‘It is a matter of common occurrence for an individual to become insolvent while attempting to pursue a claim against someone else. In some cases, the bankruptcy will itself have been caused by the failure of the other party to meet his obligations. In many more cases, this will be the view of the bankrupt. It is not unusual in such circumstances for there to be a difference of opinion between the trustee and the bankrupt over whether a claim should be pursued. The trustee may have nothing in his hands with which to fund litigation. Even if he has, he must act in the interests of creditors generally and the creditors will often prefer to receive an immediate distribution rather than see the bankrupt’s assets ventured on the costs of litigation which may or may not yield a larger distribution at some future date. The bankrupt, with nothing more to lose, tends to take a more sanguine view of the prospects of success. In such a case the trustee may decide, as in this case, that the practical course in the interests of all concerned (apart from the defendant) is to assign the claim to the bankrupt and let him pursue it for himself, on terms that he accounts to the trustee for some proportion of the proceeds.
It is understandable that a defendant who does not share the bankrupt’s view of the merits of the claim may be disappointed to find that notwithstanding the bankruptcy, which he thought would result in a practical commercial decision by an independent trustee to discontinue the proceedings, the action is still being pursued by the bankrupt. His disappointment is increased if he finds that the bankrupt as plaintiff in his own name has the benefit of legal aid which would not have been available to the trustee. Similar considerations apply to an assignment of a right of action by the liquidator of an insolvent company to a shareholder or former director. In such a case there is the further point that the company as plaintiff can be required to give security for costs. The shareholder assignee as an individual cannot be required to give security even if (either because he does not qualify or the Legal Aid Board considers that the claim has no merits) he is not in receipt of legal aid’.
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann
Independent 19-May-1995, Times 19-May-1995, [1996] 1 AC 243, [1995] UKHL 11, [1995] 2 All ER 961, [1995] 2 WLR 710, [1995] 2 BCLC 94
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 323
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromStein v Blake CA 13-May-1993
The plaintiff argued that: ‘Nothing in the wording of section 323 changes the nature of set-off as it operates between solvent parties; it merely widens the categories of claim capable of being, and which must be, set off.’
Held: The decision . .

Cited by:
AppliedCircuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken Redac (Uk) Ltd CA 5-Apr-1996
The assignment of a debt by a company in liquidation to a significant shareholder, in order to allow him to make an application for legal aid, and to avoid having to give security for costs and to allow the action to proceed was not unlawful, but . .
CitedMulkerrins v Pricewaterhouse Coopers HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages from her former accountants for failing to protect her from bankruptcy. The receiver had unnecessarily caused great difficulties in making their claim that such an action vested in them. The defendants had subsequently, . .
CitedSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Frid HL 13-May-2004
The company went into insolvent liquidation. The secretary of state was to make payments to employees and there were other state preferential creditors. At the same time a refund of VAT was due from the Commissioners of customs and Excise.
CitedFuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd and Another ChD 6-Mar-2001
A tenant complained to the landlord about his failure to repair. He ceased paying rent, and the landlord eventually distrained for rent by direct action.
Held: The tenant was unable to claim a legal set-off because there was no context of . .
See AlsoStein v Blake and others CA 13-Oct-1997
The defendants challenged leave to appeal given to the plaintiff against dismissal of his claim following the Prudential Assurance case.
Held: The issue was whether the plaintiff can recover the loss which he has allegedly sustained by reason . .
See AlsoStein v Blake and others CA 13-Oct-1997
The defendants challenged leave to appeal given to the plaintiff against dismissal of his claim following the Prudential Assurance case.
Held: The issue was whether the plaintiff can recover the loss which he has allegedly sustained by reason . .
See AlsoStein v Blake ChD 31-Oct-2000
When a Legal Aid certificate was withdrawn, leading to an opposing party suffering abortive costs in continuing the action, it was not a duty of the Legal Services Commission to inform the opposing side. They would have no access to arrangements . .
CitedIn re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd SC 19-Oct-2011
The bank had been put into administrative receivership, and the court was now asked as to how distributions were to be made, and in particular as to the application of the equitable rule in Cherry v Boultbee in the rule against double proof as it . .
CitedLB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.89537

Lord Chancellor v Rees and others: QBD 19 Dec 2008

Sir Charles Gray considered an appeal against the findings of a costs judge, saying: ‘it appears to me that it is incumbent on the Lord Chancellor in any appeal to the High Court to identify some question of law or principle which arises, since the High Court would be slow to differ from the assessment of the Costs Judge on an issue of fact or judgment.’
Sir Charles Gray
[2009] 1 All ER 163, [2008] EWHC 3168 (QB)
Bailii
Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLord Chancellor v Ian Henery Solicitors Ltd QBD 8-Dec-2011
The court heard a challenge to arrangements within the graduated fees scheme for payment of defence lawyers, and in particular ‘when does a trial begin?’ and whether a case should be paid as a ‘trial’ or as a ‘cracked trial’. The trial had been . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.296307

Hale, Regina (On the Application of) v North Sefton Justices: Admn 14 Jan 2002

The court considered the words ‘in the proceedings’ in Regulation 7 of the 1986 Regulations. One issue was whether claims for attendance on the claimant prior to charge are for expenses incurred by the claimant ‘in the proceedings’. The court decided that claims for attendance prior to charge were encompassed by those words. Instructions were given at a time when charge was imminent and the bail on which the claimant had been placed was about to expire.
Auld LJ said: ‘It seems to me that on a sensible approach it cannot reasonably be said that the advice sought and given at the initial attendance was not ‘in the proceedings’ simply because the charge had not yet been preferred.’
Auld LJ, Gage J
[2002] EWHC 257 (Admin)
Bailii
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 7
Cited by:
CitedCoulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2011
coulson_NIQBD2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.347789

McGeoch, Re Judicial Review: SCS 15 Jan 2013

(Outer House, Court of Session) Challenge to refusal of legal aid.
Lord Brodie
[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 6, 2013 SLT 183, 2013 GWD 3-88
Bailii
Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedCherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 February 2021; Ref: scu.470537

Ram, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board: Admn 12 Jan 2004

The claimant had won an action for damages against the respondent. He was however released on licence, and subsequently became unlawfully at large. The question was whether the damages continued to be payable to him. The defendant insisted that the sum could only be paid personally, which would allow his arrest. The legal aid provisions require damages to be paid through the solicitors, so as to allow enforcement of the statutory charge.
Held: At the time of the award, the claimant was lawfully at large. As to the application for leave to appeal, it could not be said that the claimant’s recall was not foreseeable, and therefore the conditions in Barder were not fulfilled. On the other hand specific performance as requested by the claimant was not available against the Crown under the 1947 Act save by discretion. That discretion could be exercised here to disallow any payment getting to the claimant whilst he was unlawfully at large.
Crane J
[2004] EWHC 1 (Admin)
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 10(7), Community Legal Service (Costs) Regulations 2000 18, Crown Proceedings Act 1947 25
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBarder v Barder; Barder v Caluori HL 1988
Later Event no ground to appeal from consent order
The matrimonial home had been owned jointly by the husband and wife. In divorce proceedings, an order was made by consent that the husband should transfer his interest in the home to the wife within 28 days. Before the order had been executed, the . .
ApprovedS v S (Ancillary Relief: Consent Order) FD 4-Mar-2002
An order for ancillary relief had been made by consent. Later the House of Lords issued a judgment which changed the law which had been the basis of the decision to accept the settlement. The wife now sought to set aside the consent order, and . .
CitedLamare v Dixon HL 1873
The respondent resisted an order for specific performance of a contract, saying that the plaintiffs had reneged on an essential promise in a collateral contract.
Held: The defence failed. Lord Chelmsford said: ‘The exercise of the jurisdiction . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.191230

The Public Law Project, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor: SC 13 Jul 2016

Proposed changes to the Legal Aid regulations were challenged as being invalid, for being discriminatory. If regulations are not authorised under statute, they will be invalid, even if they have been approved by resolutions of both Houses under the provisions of the relevant enabling Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded as to the ultra vires issue.
Lord Neuberger said: ‘Turning to section 9(2)(b) itself, as a matter of ordinary language, the relevant parts of the draft order do not seek to ‘vary or omit services’: rather they seek to reduce the class of individuals who are entitled to receive those services by reference to a personal characteristic or circumstance unrelated to the services. Of course, the words of section 9(2)(b) have to be interpreted in their context, and I accept that a sufficiently clear and strong context could justify a different conclusion, in the sense that the words of section 9(2)(b) could, as a matter of language, just about extend to a regulation such as the draft order. Nonetheless, that is not their natural meaning, and, of course, the natural meaning of the words in question is an important factor in an issue of statutory interpretation, particularly when they suggest that a so-called Henry VIII power does not extend to authorise the subordinate legislation in question.’
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, with the agreement of the other members of the court, cited with approval the following passage in Craies on Legislation, 10th ed (2012), edited by Daniel Greenberg, at para 1.3.11: ‘as with all delegated powers the only rule for construction is to test each proposed exercise by reference to whether or not it is within the class of action that Parliament must have contemplated when delegating. Although Henry VIII powers are often cast in very wide terms, the more general the words used by Parliament to delegate a power, the more likely it is that an exercise within the literal meaning of the words will nevertheless be outside the legislature’s contemplation.’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 39, [2016] AC 153, [2016] HRLR 17, [2016] WLR(D) 384, [2016] 3 WLR 387, UKSC 2015/0255
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary video, SC Vid am, SC video pm
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 9
England and Wales
Citing:
At AdmnThe Public Law Project, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice The Office of The Children’s Commissioner Admn 15-Jul-2014
The claimant challenged the lawfulness of the 2014 Regulations which amended the entitlement to legal aid for those failing a residence test: ‘ the effect of this amendment will be to exclude those who have a better than fifty-fifty chance of . .
At CAPublic Law Project v The Lord Chancellor and Another CA 25-Nov-2015
Lord Chancellor’s appeal, with permission granted by the court below, against the decision of the Divisional Court granting a declaration that legislation which the Lord Chancellor proposed to introduce by statutory instrument would be unlawful. Mr . .
CitedWestminster Bank Limited v The Minister for Housing and Local Government, Beverley Borough Council HL 1971
The Bank’s application for planning permission was refused on the grounds that the development might prejudice the possible future widening of a road. The local authority could have prescribed a building line in accordance with a provision of the . .
CitedF Hoffmann La Roche and Co A G v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry HL 1975
No Indemnity for misadministration
The Secretary of State sought an interlocutory injunction under the Act to restrain the appellant from charging prices in excess of those fixed by a statutory instrument he had made. The appellant argued that the statutory instrument was ultra . .
CitedThe Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
CitedSilver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .
CitedMalone v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Aug-1984
The complainant asserted that his telephone conversation had been tapped on the authority of a warrant signed by the Secretary of State, but that there was no system to supervise such warrants, and that it was not therefore in ‘accordance with law’. . .
CitedMcKiernon v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 26-Oct-1989
A statute granting a power to be amended by a subordinate instrument can only do so by an express power: ‘Whether subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure, [subordinate legislation] is subject to much briefer, if any, examination . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Social Security, Ex parte Britnell (Alan) HL 1991
The applicant claimed and was paid benefits. There was later determined to have been an overpayment. A sum was recovered by deductions, but then he was granted only supplementary allowance. No deductions could be made from that, but the respondent . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited HL 7-Dec-2000
The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit . .

Cited by:
CitedMiller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
CitedIngenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2016
The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 February 2021; Ref: scu.566880

Beechwood Construction Ltd v Afza and Another: ChD 31 Oct 2008

The appellant appealed against a final third party debt order in the form of a charge over damages awarded in an action where the party had been legally aided, and the debt was charged in favour of the Legal Services Commission.
Appeal from third party debt order.
Behrens J
[2008] EWHC B18 (Ch), [2008] EWHC 2671 (Ch), [2009] BPIR 7
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 February 2021; Ref: scu.346876

Legal Services Commission v Rasool: CA 5 Mar 2008

The defendant had in 1993 obtained legal aid. Work was done but the certificate was then revoked. The Commission sought repayment of the sums paid on account to his solicitors. He replied that the claim was out of time. The Commission argued that time did not run until the sum was fixed.
Held: The Commission’s appeal failed: ‘the fact that declaratory relief is available demonstrates to me that the process of ascertainment of the amount of costs is a mere procedural requirement, not an inherent element of the cause of action itself . . time runs from the date of the completion of work not from the date of taxation. I can see no reason why a similar rule should not apply by way of analogy so that the only facts to be proved to establish cause of action under regulation 86(1) are that work had been done under a certificate but that the certificate had been revoked. Taxation should not be the crystallising event in either case.’
Lord Justice Ward, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Wilson
[2008] EWCA Civ 154, Times 21-Apr-2008, [2008] 3 All ER 381, [2008] 4 Costs LR 529, [2008] 1 WLR 2711, (2008) 158 NLJ 414
Bailii
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations (SI 1989 No 339), Limitation Act 1980 9
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCoburn v Colledge CA 1897
A solicitor commenced an action on June 12th, 1896 for his fees for work which had been completed on May 30th 1889.
Held: A period of limitation runs from the date on which the ingredients of the cause of action are complete. The statute of . .
CitedCentral Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corporation HL 1963
Under the 1947 Act, the assets of electricity undertakings were transferred to to electricity boards. Property held by local authorities as authorised undertakers should, on vesting day, vest in the relevant board. A question arose as to whether . .
CitedLondon Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited (No 2) CA 16-Jun-2000
The council entered upon land belonging to the company in accordance with the compulsory purchase procedures in 1982, but the company did not bring its claim for compensation until 1992. The council said the were out of time.
Held: Section 9 . .
CitedSevcon Ltd v Lucas CAV Ltd HL 1986
A claim was brought for the infringement of a patent. It was brought after the specification had been published, but before the patent had been sealed.
Held: Time might run from a date before the plaintiff was entitled to sue. The cause of . .

Cited by:
CitedLegal Services Commission v Henthorn QBD 4-Feb-2011
lsc_henthornQBD11
The claimant sought to recover overpayments said to have been made to the defendant barrister in the early 1990s. Interim payments on account had been made, but these were not followed by final accounts. The defendant, now retired, said that the . .
CitedLegal Services Commission v Henthorn CA 30-Nov-2011
The Commission sought to recover what it said were payments made on account to the respondent barrister, but only after many years had passed. The Commission argued that time only began to run once it requested repayment.
Held: The appeal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2021; Ref: scu.266089