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’.’
Coulson J
[2013] EWHC 4011 (Admin)
Bailii
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 32, The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
England and Wales
Citing:
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