Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 23 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
In Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of Costs) [2001] 1 FLR 602
2001
CA
Hale LJ
Legal Aid, Costs
The appellant argued that the Costs Practice Direction, supplementing Parts 43-48 of the CPR, had the same force in law as the Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1991; and that they impliedly amended or repealed them in so far as they were inconsistent. Held. The argument was rejected. Hale LJ said: "Unlike the Lord Chancellor's orders under his 'Henry VIII' powers, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 themselves and the 1991 Remuneration Regulations, the Practice Directions are not made by Statutory Instrument. They are not laid before Parliament or subject to either the negative or positive resolution procedures in Parliament. They go though no democratic process at all, although if approved by the Lord Chancellor he will bear ministerial responsibility for them to Parliament. But there is a difference in principle between delegated legislation which may be scrutinised by Parliament and ministerial executive action. There is no ministerial responsibility for Practice Directions made for the Supreme Court by the Heads of Division. As Professor Jolowicz says . . 'It is right that the court should retain its power to regulate its own procedure within the limits set by statutory rules, and to fill in gaps left by those rules; it is wrong that it should have power actually to legislate'."
Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1991 - Civil Procedure Rules
1 Citers


 
David MacDonald v Geoffrey Myerson and Others Gazette, 08 February 2001
26 Jan 2001
CA

Legal Aid, Land
The client obtained mortgages for properties through a fraud as to his identity. He was convicted of fraud, but in the meantime sold one property through the defendant solicitors. The mortgage was redeemed, but the defendant refused to pay the balance proceeds of sale to the claimant, on the basis that his claim was based upon an illegal contract. He asserted that he was simply entitled. The claimant succeeded, since it was admitted that in fact he was the person who had purchased and sold the property. It was for parliament if it wished to create any way of enhancing civil confiscation procedures.

 
Burrows (T/A David Burrows), Regina (on the Application Of) v Legal Services Commission [2001] EWCA Civ 205
12 Feb 2001
CA

Legal Aid

Legal Aid Act 1988 15(4)
[ Bailii ]
 
Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellshaft Mbh v Koshy and Others Times, 20 February 2001; Gazette, 01 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1228
20 Feb 2001
CA

Legal Aid, Costs
The effect of revocation of a party's emergency civil legal aid certificate was that he was to be deemed never to have been an assisted person. Accordingly where two costs orders had been made in interlocutory proceedings, and the defendant had been protected from an order for costs because of the legal aid certificate, it was open to a judge to revisit those costs orders after revocation and to consider substituting orders which could not have been made when he was legally aided. The provisions in this case survived some of the repeals under the new legislation.
Legal Aid Act 1988 - Access to Justice Act 1999 - Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Stacey v Player and Another Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 23 February 2001
23 Feb 2001
ChD

Costs, Legal Aid
A party was legally aided in proceedings. A third party offered to pay his costs in interlocutory proceedings. He was successful, and the losing party appealed an order to pay his costs. He succeeded. Whilst he was legally aided, his solicitors could only receive payment from the Legal Services Commission, and the fact that someone else might have paid did not allow an order against the third party. Such an order would leave the solicitors receiving payment other than from the LSC.
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 64


 
 Regina v Legal Aid Board, Ex Parte Burrows; CA 8-Mar-2001 - Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 16 March 2001
 
Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgellschaft Mbh v Koshy and others [2001] EWCA Civ 489
3 Apr 2001
CA

Legal Aid

[ Bailii ]
 
Gibson v Legal Aid Board [2001] EWCA Civ 604
24 Apr 2001
CA
Longmore LJ
Legal Aid

[ Bailii ]
 
Bewry, Regina (on the Application of) v Legal Services Commission [2001] EWCA Civ 731
11 May 2001
CA
Robert Walker LJ
Legal Aid
The claimant sought leave to appeal against refusal of his claim for judicial review of a decision by the repondent to grant him exceptional funding for legal representation in a claim before an Employment Tribunal. Held: Leave was refused. The judge's dismissal of the application was inevitable.
Access to Justice Act 1999 6(8)(b)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Jarrett, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Admn 22-May-2001 - [2001] EWHC 389 (Admin)

 
 McLean and Another v Buchanan, Procurator Fiscal and Another; PC 24-May-2001 - Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 2425; [2001] UKPC D3; 2001 GWD 19-720; 2001 SCCR 475; 2001 SLT 780; 2002 SC (PC) 1; [2001] UKHRR 793

 
 Regina (Gunn) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Regina (Kelly) v Same Regina (Zahid Khan) v Same; CA 14-Jun-2001 - Times, 20 June 2001; Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 891; [2001] 1 WLR 1634; [2001] CP Rep 107; [2001] 3 All ER 481; [2001] 2 Costs LR 263
 
Regina v Ashgar Khan Unreported, 10 July 2001
10 Jul 2001

Judge Wakerley QC
Legal Professions, Legal Aid
Judge Wakerley QC expressed his concern at the numbers of applications for transfer of representation in the Crown Court. The court has a duty to bear in mind the cost to the taxpayer and that, as a result, good reason must be established before a representation order was transferred. He emphasised that the court will insist on strict compliance with the provisions of Regulation 16 which meant that the grounds of the application and full particulars need to be specified by the existing representative.
He observed: "This court will insist on strict compliance with the provisions of Regulation 16 . . The grounds of the application and full particulars need to be specified by the existing representatives. Next, the substantial compelling reason under subparagraph 2(4), if relied on, needs to be specified so that I can identify it. It will not generally be sufficient to allege a lack of care or competence of existing representatives . . only in extremely rare cases, and where full particulars are given in the application, will a general ground of loss of confidence or incompetence be entertained. It must further be pointed out that it will not be sufficient simply to say that there is a breakdown in the relationship between solicitor and client. Many breakdowns are imagined rather than real or as a result of proper advice"
Criminal Defence Service (General)(No.2) Regulations 2001 16
1 Citers


 
Adshead and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Legal Services Commission [2001] EWCA Civ 1380
24 Aug 2001
CA
Aldous LJ
Legal Aid

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Bateman and Bateman) v Legal Services Commission [2001] EWHC Admin 696
10 Sep 2001
Admn

Legal Aid
The applicants sought a judicial review after their legal aid certificates were revoked for non-disclosure of various financial receipts. A financial statement prepared on their behalf had suggested substantial capital assets. The relationship between a legally aided person and the Board is one of utmost good faith (Parsons). A legally aided person must notify the Board of a change in circumstances where objectively believes that a change might affect the conditions of his entitlement (Elias). A reduction in income is reportable where the applicant ceases to receive a pass ported benefit. Revocation is a punitive sanction, and should be imposed according to the culpability of any non-disclosure. The decision about cancellation and revocation of a certificate involve the exercise of two discretions. The decision letter had only referred to one. Accordingly the court could not be sure the committee had taken into account the matters it had to, and the decision letter was set aside.
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 - Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1989
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Ecclestone) v Legal Aid Board; SCCO 5-Oct-2001 - [2001] EW Costs 8
 
Snowden v Ministry of Defence [2001] EWCA Civ 1524
10 Oct 2001
CA

Costs, Legal Aid

Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 109
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
K Zaman Ali and Co v The Lord Chancellor; (Regina v Zaka) [2001] EW Costs 12
26 Oct 2001
SCCO
Mr Justice Butterfield sitting without Assessors
Costs, Legal Aid
This was a criminal appeal by solicitors who had submitted their bill of costs in which work was claimed at prescribed legal aid rates for grade A fee earner level, which was however accompanied by a letter, which started with the following paragraphs:
"We are grateful for the kind extension of time granted to submit our bill of costs with the further extension allowing us to send our papers by DX on Monday 22 instant.
Enhancement is respectfully claimed in this case for the following reasons ..."
No percentage enhancement however is actually mentioned in either this letter, or of course in the bill.
The Determining Officer refused to allow any enhancement, holding that what he had to consider was the bill and that any accompanying letter was a supporting document not to be read as part of the bill.
The Costs Judge affirmed the decision of the Determining Officer, but granted a certificate to allow the matter to proceed to a final appeal in the High Court.
On the facts the Judge decided the appeal against the solicitors, but he did lay down some general principles to be followed in future cases to ensure that decisions of Determining Officers were not "Wednesbury unreasonable".
He apparently suggested that the Determining Officer could, in a situation such as arose here, either refer the whole bill back to the solicitors to make a proper claim to include enhancement; he could deal with it as if enhancement had been claimed; or he could make reasonable enquiries.
What seems to have been fatal to the solicitors’ appeal in this case is that they neither claimed enhancement in the bill itself, nor did they specify in the accompanying letter what rate of enhancement they were seeking. However in the light of the Judge’s comments summarised above it seems unlikely that this situation will recur.
The Judge made no order as to the costs of the appeal, although the Lord Chancellor’s Department was represented by counsel.

 
Re: Homes Assured Corporation Plc The Official Receiver v Dobson and Others; similar [2001] EW Costs 15
28 Nov 2001
SCCO
Mr Justice Park sitting with Assessors
Costs, Legal Aid
CourtService In these two related appeals heard together the learned Judge dealt with the appropriate penalty to apply when Regulation 109 of the Legal Aid (General) Regulations was invoked. In the first case there had been a delay of 4 years between the conclusion of the proceedings and the notice of commencement of the assessment proceedings, which the Deputy Costs Judge had held to be totally unreasonable, so that he allowed no profit costs whatsoever. The authorities were reviewed. A complete disallowance of the solicitors’ profit costs was not an appropriate remedy, bearing in mind that the Legal Services Commission had not suffered any prejudice, and indeed the only prejudice suffered might have been that of the claimants’ solicitors. The Judge did not feel it appropriate to lay down any rule in relation to such applications, but, on the facts of this case where the bill was some £30,000, he felt that a 30% deduction from the bill was appropriate. In the second case the Costs Judge had taken an adverse view of the claimants solicitors conduct, which the learned Judge did not consider to have been correct, but in that case he did not feel that he had sufficient information to come to a final decision, and therefore remitted the matter to the Costs Judge for reconsideration in the light of his judgment.

 
Munday, Regina (on the Application Of) v Legal Services Commission [2001] EWCA Civ 1871
4 Dec 2001
CA

Legal Aid

[ Bailii ]
 
Richard Hinds v The Attorney General and The Superintendent of Glendairy Prison Appeal No 28 0f 2000; [2001] UKPC 56
5 Dec 2001
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Murray Stuart-Smith Sir KennethKeith
Legal Aid, Constitutional
(Barbados) The appellant argued that the denial of free legal representation at his trial infringed his constitutional rights. He had been faced with a charge of arson, but was told the complexity of the case did not require legal assistance. The trial involved issues as to his competence and the admissibility of his confession. The constitution gave him the right to a fair trial, but provided no right to free legal representation. A scheme had been introduced later. Held: The constitution must be seen as a living document. Barbados, had, in ratifying international conventions explicitly withheld the right to free representation. The right to a fair trial was not however qualified. Breach of a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial must result in the conviction being quashed. The provision of a right of appeal did not in this case correct the judge's failure to consider his individual circumstances properly. However a claim for constitutional relief is not an alternative means of challenging a conviction or a judicial decision, nor an additional means where such a challenge, based on constitutional grounds, has been made and rejected. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Augustine Machi) v Legal Services Commission Times, 15 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2010; [2002] 1 WLR 983
20 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Sedley
Administrative, Legal Aid
The applicant was legally aided under a full certificate. He wished to continue an action despite his solicitors and counsel advising him to accept a settlement offered. The Respondent wished to consider revocation of the certificate, and instructed the solicitors to cease work until a decision had been made. This was a day or so before the trial was listed. Held: The Commission had no power to make such a request in this way. They had acted in a procedurally unfair way to the applicant.
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 339) - Legal Aid Act 1988 4
[ Bailii ]
 
Miller H Caldwell, Authority Reporter for Dumfries and Galloway v N J L I and D E I and the Scottish Legal Aid Board
27 Dec 2001
ScSf
Sheriff Principal John McInnes, QC
Scotland, Legal Aid

[ ScotC ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.