The husband opposed assisted proceedings brought by his wife, in which he was ordered to pay a sum of costs. He did not pay, and the Law Society brought proceedings against him for their recovery. He sought to set-off against that claim a debt allegedly owed to him by his wife.
Held: The court referred to the machinery for the collection and administration of a costs order in favour of an assisted person: ‘[T]his means that the assisted person never obtains the slightest entitlement as beneficiary to a single penny payable by virtue of an order in his favour for costs . . . Any order for costs is only made in the name of the assisted person for the purposes of identification and taxation . . .No set-off can arise because the money never belongs to the assisted person; it belongs to the Legal Aid Fund.’
England and Wales
Cited – Sonia 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.216496