swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Legal Aid - From: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Murria v Lord Chancellor; QBD 11-Jan-2000 - Times, 11 January 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000
Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy and Others Times, 19 January 2000; Gazette, 13 January 2000
13 Jan 2000
ChD
Legal Aid, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
Once a legal aid certificate is revoked the party is deemed by statute never to have had the benefit of a legal aid certificate. The rules relating to assessment of costs which applied when a party had legal aid did not therefore apply. An order however which has once been made cannot be varied subsequently by reference to those rules, even if the order was made in the light of them.
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 130 - Civil Procedure Rules Part 3.1(7)
Levy v Legal Aid Board Gazette, 24 February 2000; Gazette, 16 March 2000
24 Feb 2000
ChD
Costs, Legal Aid, Insolvency
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.
Insolvency Rules 1986/1925 12 3 (2) (a)
Morgan and Others v Legal Aid Board Times, 24 April 2000
24 Apr 2000
ChD
Legal Aid
The Legal Aid Board is entitled to a charge over property which is 'recovered or preserved' in proceedings in which the party is legally aided. Nevertheless, the charge could not be applied to property merely because it had been included within assets dealt with by a consent order. The property over which a charge is sought must have been in issue within the proceedings, or was substituted for such property.
Legal Aid Act 1974
1 Cites
Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex Parte C (A Child); QBD 26-Apr-2000 - Times, 26 April 2000
Fryer v Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; CA 16-May-2000 - Times, 16 May 2000
Regina v Area Director of Legal Aid Board ex parte Edwin Coe (a Firm) and Another Times, 26 May 2000; Gazette, 22 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 157
17 May 2000
CA
Legal Aid
The Legal Aid Board having issued an amendment to an authority under a certificate to reflect the application made, but where the certificate failed to reflect the intended scope of the authority, the Board could later amend the certificate to cover the work undertaken, particularly where the certificate, as here, contained a manifest error.
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 (1989 No 399) 51(a)
[ Bailii ]
Legal Aid Area No 1 (London) Appeal Committee v ex parte Mccormick Gazette, 22 June 2000; Times, 13 June 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 351; [2000] 1 WLR 1804
26 May 2000
Admn
Legal Aid
An assisted person had had his legal aid certificate revoked after failing to disclose to the Legal Aid Board a change in his circumstances. The test of whether a change was material and so should be disclosed was an objective test as to whether the assisted person had reason to believe it might affect his eligibility. The Board should consider more carefully the circumstances of each case to decide whether to revoke or only discharge a certificate.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
R M Broudle and Co (A Firm) v Lord Chancellor Times, 04 July 2000
4 Jul 2000
CA
Legal Aid
A criminal legal aid order came to an end when a single judge refused leave to appeal. The costs of an application to renew to the full court could only be met if the full court so agreed. The determining officer has followed this as consistent policy which was not to be changed by the case of R v Gibson ((1983) 77 Cr App R 151.
W and others v Legal Services Commission [2000] EWCA Civ 225
20 Jul 2000
CA
Legal Aid
[ Bailii ]
Procurator Fiscal, Fort William v Mclean and Another; HCJ 11-Aug-2000 - Times, 11 August 2000
Regina v Legal Aid Board, Ex Parte W and Others (Minors) Times, 19 September 2000; Gazette, 05 October 2000
19 Sep 2000
CA
Children, Legal Aid
When considering the granting of legal aid for a solicitor to be appointed to represent a child's guardian ad litem in proceedings under section 34, the Board had failed to acknowledge the requirement under the Rules placed upon a guardian to be represented. There was no choice about the appointment. The power to reject an application could only be exercised where it was considered unreasonable to grant legal aid. The failure to consider the obligation was a fundamental flaw in the decision, which was vitiated.
Children Act 1989 34 - Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (1991/1247) 4.11 4.12 - Legal Aid Act 1974
Hicks v Russell Jones and Walker Unreported, 27 October 2000
27 Oct 2000
Robert Walker LJ
Costs, Legal Aid
1 Citers
Stein v Blake; ChD 31-Oct-2000 - Times, 31 October 2000; Gazette, 09 November 2000
Levy v Legal Services Commission (Formerly the Legal Aid Board) Gazette, 30 November 2000; Times, 01 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 285
10 Nov 2000
CA
Insolvency, Family, Legal Aid
A costs order made in the course of family proceedings had the same protection against enforcement through insolvency proceedings as do other family orders. No provable bankruptcy debt arose because it was made under an order in family proceedings. There were no special circumstances to require the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to found a bankruptcy petition on a non-provable debt. A party served with a statutory demand based upon a non-provable debt has the right to have the demand set aside, since there was no realistic prospect of a bankruptcy order following.
Insolvency Rules 1986/1925 12.3(2)(a)
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Selby Justices, ex parte Daltry Gazette, 07 December 2000; Times, 01 December 2000
1 Dec 2000
QBD
Legal Aid, Contempt of Court
If a court laid a charge of contempt of court, legal aid should normally be granted to the defendant. It was wrong, first to hear representations which led to the charge of contempt being withdrawn, and then to decide that legal aid should not be granted because it was no longer necessary. The effect of this practice would be that legal aid would only be available for sentence for contempt. Contempt is a potentially serious matter and a defendant will generally require representation.
A Local Authority v A Mother and Child; CA 20-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 339
