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: 2003 To: 2003
This page lists 12 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co and Another (2) [2003] EWCA Civ 70; [2003] 1 WLR 1511
16 Jan 2003
CA
Legal Aid
The claimant had been funded for a personal injury claim under legal aid. He appealed against a decision that he was not a "patient" and that he had been fully capable of managing and administering his affairs for many years. He lost. The respondents to the appeal sought that their costs be paid by the LSC. It was not in dispute that the claimant should be ordered to pay the costs of the respondent to each appeal, and that "the determination of the amount of those costs which it is reasonable for the plaintiff to pay" should be referred to a costs judge in accordance with the 1999 Act and the Regulations. The proceedings were, however, ongoing, and the question arose whether or not the costs judge would have jurisdiction in those circumstances to make an order against the LSC. Held: Chadwick LJ said: "For my part I am not at all attracted by the suggestion that the question what order should be made in relation to the costs of this appeal should be adjourned for what may be a lengthy and indefinite period while these proceedings work their way through to final disposal. I can see no reason why a Section 11 (1) costs order should not be made at this stage in the form of paragraph 3 of the draft order that has been put before us; that is to say, an order that the determination of the appellant's liability, if any, to pay costs and any application by the respondent for an order for payment of such costs by the Legal Services Commission be referred to a costs judge in accordance with Regulation 10 of the Community Legal Services Costs Regulations 2000. I would amend the paragraph so that it covers not only an application for an order under Section 18 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 but also an application under Regulation 5 of the Costs Protection Regulations 2000. The effect of an order in that form, as it seems to me, will be that any application for payment of Burton & Co's costs by the Legal Services Commission will have to be made within three months of the date of the order. If, on such an application, the Legal Services Commission takes the point that the application is premature the costs judge will have power to adjourn the matter until there has been a final resolution of the proceedings; or, if he thinks it necessary, to refer the point for guidance by an appellate court.
My present view is that further guidance is unnecessary. To my mind the point is covered by the observations of Lord Denning MR in General Accident Car and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd v Foster . . . The only proceedings in relation to which we are asked to make an order for costs are the proceedings in this court. Those proceedings have been finally determined; and I can see no difficulty in the exercise by a costs judge of the jurisdiction conferred by the statute and the regulations in relation to the costs of those proceedings."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Dixon, Regina (on the Application Of) v Legal Services Commission [2003] EWHC 325 (Admin)
30 Jan 2003
Admn
Legal Aid
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Mudie and Another) v Dover Magistrates' Court and Another Times, 07 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 237
4 Feb 2003
CA
Phillips of Worth Matravers, MR, Brooke, Laws LJJ
Customs and Excise, Magistrates, Legal Aid, Human Rights
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.
Access to Justice Act 1999 12(2) - Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Sch 3 para 6 - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Hm v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 583
8 Apr 2003
CA
Legal Aid
[ Bailii ]
Orwin v British Coal Corporation [2003] EWHC 757 (Ch)
10 Apr 2003
ChD
Legal Aid, Costs
[ Bailii ]
Jones and Another v Congregational and General Insurance plc Times, 07 July 2003
2 May 2003
QBD
Chamber QC J
Legal Aid, Costs
The claimants had lost their claim on an insurance policy, and had had costs awarded against them subject only to the issue of whether the fact that they had been legally aided protected them. Held: The applicants had been found to be guilty of fraud, both as to the underlying claim, and in their applications for legal aid. They were accordingly not entitled to the protection which those with a legal aid certificate would normally receive.
Access to Justice Act 1999 11(1)
Fowler De Pledge (A Firm) v Smith [2003] EWCA Civ 703; Times, 27 May 2003; Gazette, 31 July 2003
20 May 2003
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Litigation Practice, Legal Aid
The appellant sought two permissions to appeal. Having at one stage been legally aided in proceedings, a claim for his solicitors costs had been compromised. The court records were imperfect. It was not clear whether a circuit judge sitting as a first appeal court had directed that a matter should be heard by another circuit judge as an appeal by way of rehearing, or as a rehearing of the original application. Held: Courts must be careful to be clear as to just what was being ordered. There was no evidence to justify a finding that Mr Smith had sufficient means to pay the full amount of the costs order against him, whether by consent or not.
Legal Aid Act 1988 17
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
UCB Bank Plc v Hedworth [2003] EWCA Civ 945
18 Jun 2003
CA
Litigation Practice, Legal Aid
[ Bailii ]
Bhamjee, Re an Application for Permission; Admn 14-Jul-2003 - [2003] EWHC 1808 (Admin)
Perotti v Collyer-Bristow (A Firm) and others; CA 6-Oct-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 1521; Times, 27 November 2003
Khan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health; CA 10-Oct-2003 - [2004] 1 WLR 971; [2003] EWCA Civ 1129; Times, 15 October 2003; Gazette, 20 November 2003; [2003] Inquest LR 70; [2003] 3 FCR 341; (2004) 76 BMLR 118; [2003] ACD 89; (2004) 7 CCL Rep 361; [2003] 4 All ER 1239; [2004] Lloyd's Rep Med 159
Hill v Bailey Times, 05 January 2004; Gazette, 15 January 2004; [2004] 1 All ER 1210; [2003] EWHC 2835 (Ch); [2004] 1 All ER 1210; [2004] CP Rep 24; [2004] 1 Costs LR 135
25 Nov 2003
ChD
Lightman J
Costs, Legal Aid, Litigation Practice
Costs orders had been made against each party in favour of the other. One was legally aided. Held: Though the legally aided party was entitled to some protection against enforcement of an order for costs, he was not protected against the other party exercising a right of set off under the mutual costs orders. A set-off does not place the person against whom it is asserted under any obligation to pay, but merely reduces the amount that he can recover.
Access to Justice Act 1999 11
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
