The claimant sought judicial review of a decision not to give prior approval to the claimant’s solicitors, a well-known firm of immigration lawyers, to instruct Bindmans LLP, another well-known firm of immigration lawyers, to provide ‘expert’ advice on her immigration status, and instead to indicate that the work would be funded in another way and at a different rate.
Held: The court order under which the advice was required referred to the advice of counsel, and the application named the firm and not an individual expert: ‘Providing an expert’s report for the assistance of the court is a personal task: it is the responsibility of a named individual. A firm of solicitors cannot act as an expert: in the same way, if the court orders an expert accountant to provide a report, that report has to be provided by an individual, not by ‘Arthur Anderson’ or ‘Deloittes’.’
 EWHC 4011 (Admin)
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 32, The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
England and Wales
Cited – King v Brandywine Reinsurance Company CA 10-Mar-2005
Excess of Loss reinsurance. In the civil courts of England and Wales is that (with one obvious exception) expert evidence on the domestic law is inadmissible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Aid, Litigation Practice
Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.519014