SP, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor: Admn 12 Dec 2013

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:
CitedKing 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

Greenough v Ministry of Justice: Admn 11 Sep 2013

Application for permission to continue judicial review proceedings, permission having been refused on the papers.
The challenge is brought by the claimant against a refusal by the Ministry of Justice to authorise exceptional funding, pursuant to section 6(8) subparagraph (b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 for representation at an inquest into the death of her brother, who it is common ground died in his own home on 8th February 2012, on the day following his discharge from hospital.

Pelling QC HHJ
[2013] EWHC 3112 (Admin)
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 6(8)
England and Wales

Coroners, Legal Aid

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516590

In re Brownlee for Judicial Review: SC 29 Jan 2014

The appellant challenged the course taken in his criminal trial after his legal team had withdrawn citing professional embarassment. No replacement team could be found willing to act in a complicated sentencing matter because of the reduced fixed fee legal aid scheme. He had succeeded at first instance, but the Court of Appeal had held the Rules to be lawful.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Rules failed to make allowance for the need for legal representatives to be paid for preparatory work in connection with sentencing had not been allowed for. However, sice the Rules had already been amended, the remedy would be by way of a declaration, rather than mandamus.
The Court of appeal had not allowed for the fact that the change of representation was initiated by the legal representatives and not by the appellant.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 4, UKSC 2013/0247, [2014] NI 188
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Appeal fromBrownlee, Re Judicial Review CANI 23-Oct-2013
The applicant had successfully challenged the Legal Aid rules as they applied to his seeking representation on a sentencing issue in the Crown Court which had led to him being unable to find legal representation because of the inadequacy of the fee . .
At First InstanceBrownlee, Re Judicial Review QBNI 20-Mar-2013
The applicant, a convicted prisoner sought a declaration that the respondent’s decision to make no provision for exceptional circumstances in the payment of fees under the 2011 Amendment Rules is unlawful and a declaration that the said Rules . .
CitedRegina v Rowbotham and others 1988
Ontario Court of Appeal – ‘In our view a trial judge confronted with an exceptional case where legal aid has been refused and who is of the opinion that representation of the accused by counsel is essential to a fair trial may, upon being satisfied . .
CitedMcLean and Another v Buchanan, Procurator Fiscal and Another PC 24-May-2001
(Appeal from High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) It was not an infringement of a defendant’s right to a fair trial where the costs of defending the case brought against him would be substantial, but where his solicitors would be paid only a small . .
CitedCullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Northern Ireland) HL 10-Jul-2003
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
CitedRegina v Ulcay CACD 19-Oct-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarrassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . .
CitedP, Regina v Misc 18-Mar-2008
Crown Court at Harrow – The Court stayed the criminal proceedings because the defendant was unable to retain counsel because of what was said to be a failure to provide adequate legal aid fees in criminal confiscation proceedings. . .
CitedPennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010
In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Aid

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.521153

T, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Aid Agency and Others: Admn 26 Apr 2013

In care proceedings, an order had been made for the preparation of an expert report. The legally aided children applied to the defendant for assistance. It allowed a sum less than the minimum figure set by the expert company as a fee for doing the assessment.
Held: The defendant’s decision to refuse prior approval was quashed. The court acknowledged the changes in the rules, and the need for reasons and justification of the decisions requiring such reports, but ‘ Now that the instruction of experts can only follow if a judge so orders because he or she is satisfied and gives reasons for being satisfied that it is necessary it seems to me that the defendant should only refuse to give prior approval if it has very good reasons so to do. While the judge’s decision is not binding, it must carry very considerable weight. If there is good reason to reject it in whole or in part the defendant should engage with the court. This can I suspect be dealt with in many cases in writing. If the judge, having considered the defendant’s representations, maintains his or her decision it is difficult to see how a continued refusal to give effect to it could be other than unreasonable. ‘

Collins J
[2013] EWHC 960 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDS and Others (Children) FD 31-May-2012
The court gave guidance on legal aid arrangement for the funding of supporting expert evidence in care applications.
Held: The court gave the following guidance: ‘i) The words ‘the cost thereof is deemed to be a necessary and proper . .
CitedRegina (H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority and Others, Regina (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands and North West Region and Others CA 28-Jun-2002
The patient was detained under the Act. The Mental Health Tribunal decided he should be released. The hospital disagreed. The patient continued to reside to the Hospital voluntarily, but the hospital viewed the decision to release him as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.473001

Leeds City Council v Price and Others: QBD 4 Apr 2011

The council had successfully defended a case brought by the defendant under legal aid. The parties now disputed whether it could recover the costs from the Legal Service Commission. The LSC answered that it had not been given proper notice of the costs application and was not bound by it.
Held: The order for payment of the costs was revoked. But for the various Regulations, there was no power to recover costs from the LSC. The purported notice given by the Council was out of time and did not meet th enecessary requirements. The Order for payment obtained by the Council from the court ‘ was obtained as a result of a without notice application which did not contain full and frank disclosure by the Council of the dispute between the Council and the LSC. ‘

Behrens J
[2011] EWHC 849 (QB)
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 11, Community Legal Service (Costs Protection) Regulations 2000 5, Community Legal Service (Costs) Regulations 2000 9
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina (Gunn) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Regina (Kelly) v Same Regina (Zahid Khan) v Same CA 14-Jun-2001
The new Regulations and court rules expressly reserved to a costs judge the decision about whether a costs order should be made against the Legal Services Commission. The former practice of the trial judge making this decision must no longer apply. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.431737

Director of Legal Aid Casework and Others v Briggs: CA 31 Jul 2017

Orse In re Briggs (Incapacitated Person)
Sir Brian Leveson P, King , Burnett LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 1169, [2017] WLR(D) 535, (2017) 158 BMLR 88, [2018] 2 All ER 990, [2018] 2 WLR 152, [2017] COPLR 370, [2017] CP Rep 45, , [2018] Fam 63
Bailii, WLRD
Mental Capacity Act 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBriggs v Briggs and Others (EWCOP 48) CoP 24-Nov-2016
The Court considered whether the disagreement about whether it was in the best interests of Mr B for him to be given clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, was one which could be determined . .

Cited by:
CitedAn NHS Trust and Others v Y and Another SC 30-Jul-2018
The court was asked whether a court order must always be obtained before clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, which is keeping alive a person with a prolonged disorder of consciousness, can be withdrawn, or whether, in some circumstances, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.591676

Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc: CA 29 Sep 1995

Availability of legal aid to a party is not a relevant consideration to rules of forum non conveniens.
Independent 29-Sep-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromConnelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and others HL 24-Jul-1997
The availability of legal aid to a party is not part of criteria for choosing jurisdiction save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goff discussed the Spiliada case: ‘the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.79443

Norglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Etc: CA 6 Dec 1995

An assignment of a cause of action in order to be eligible to apply for Legal Aid is not against public policy. An assignment of a cause of action was not invalid solely on the ground that its purpose was to enable the action to be prosecuted on terms that the company would benefit from success. There was no jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs against Mr and Mrs Rodgers (who had taken the assignment from Norglen Ltd) and it would not in the circumstances be right to make an order against Norglen, which was dropping out of the action.
Sir Thomas Bingham M.R., Hobhouse and Aldous L.JJ
Independent 12-Jan-1996, Times 06-Dec-1995
England and Wales
Citing:
DistinguishedAdvanced Technology Structures Ltd v Cray Valley Products Ltd CA 1993
An assignment of the cause of action should not be recognised or given effect because it was a ‘sham’.
Hirst LJ said that the assignment was: ‘a mere stratagem or device to enable the company to carry on the proceedings, with the support of Mr. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromNorglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken-Redac HL 1-Dec-1997
An assignment of a cause of action by a company in liquidation was valid, even though the dominant purpose was to avoid having to give security for costs, and to get legal aid. In dismissing the argument that the transactions were a device to defeat . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.84328

Chohan v Times Newspapers Limited; Singh and Choudry (a Firm) and Choudry: CA 4 Dec 1998

[1998] EWCA Civ 1916
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoChohan v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 25-Feb-1999
. .
See AlsoTimes Newspapers Ltd v Chohan CA 22-Jun-2001
The limitation period on collection of an award of costs, must run from the date of the costs certificate. It was only at that point when it became enforceable. It would be an abuse to bring an action for enforce the costs award before that date. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2021; Ref: scu.145395

Levy v Legal Aid Board: ChD 24 Feb 2000

Although an order for costs might in some circumstances not be provable in an insolvency, that did not prevent a statutory demand based upon that debt. Whether it was provable would become clear in the later insolvency proceedings. The court had a discretion to found a petition on an unproveable debt where there were special circumstances such as, for example other debts which were provable.
Gazette 24-Feb-2000, Gazette 16-Mar-2000
Insolvency Rules 1986/1925 12 3 (2) (a)
England and Wales

Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.83037

Procurator Fiscal, Fort William v Mclean and Another: HCJ 11 Aug 2000

A rule which restricted the amount payable to a defendant to cover his legal fees in defending a case brought against him to pounds 550.00 was not an infringement of his human rights. To demonstrate a breach of the right to a fair trial, the defendant must show not only prejudice, but also some material disadvantage involving an actual and material risk of harm to his defence.
Times 11-Aug-2000
Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed payments)(Scotland) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 491)
Scotland

Updated: 20 April 2021; Ref: scu.85053

In Re O (A Minor) (Costs:Liability of Legal Aid Board); orse Re O (A Minor) (Legal Aid Costs): CA 25 Nov 1996

Grandparents should have conceded at an early stage in the Court of Appeal that an order made by the judge in proceedings relating to their grandchild had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The court considered the procedures for applying for costs for an unassisted party in children proceedings.
Times 25-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 936, [1997] 1 FCR 159
Legal Aid Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedD and D W v Portsmouth Hospital NHS; in re W (A Child) CA 3-May-2006
The claimants had sought court orders against the hospital to secure continuing life-supporting treatment for their daughter who had been born very severely disabled. The Trust now sought their costs from the various actions.
Held: The parents . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.82085

Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken Redac (Uk) Ltd: CA 5 Apr 1996

The assignment of a debt by a company in liquidation to a significant shareholder, in order to allow him to make an application for legal aid, and to avoid having to give security for costs and to allow the action to proceed was not unlawful, but the Legal Aid Board should be careful in supporting such contrived litigation.
Lord Justice Staughton, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Thorpe
Gazette 01-May-1996, Times 05-Apr-1996
Law of Property Act 1925 136(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedJoyce v Sengupta and Another CA 31-Jul-1992
The defendant published an article accusing the plaintiff of theft. Not having funds to launch a claim in libel, the plaintiff obtained legal aid to claim in malicious falsehood. She now appealed against a strike out of that claim.
Held: A . .
AppliedStein v Blake HL 18-May-1995
Where A and B each have claims against each other and A is insolvent, the common amount is set off, and the net difference remains as a debt due.
Hoffmann L said: ‘It is a matter of common occurrence for an individual to become insolvent while . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromNorglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken-Redac HL 1-Dec-1997
An assignment of a cause of action by a company in liquidation was valid, even though the dominant purpose was to avoid having to give security for costs, and to get legal aid. In dismissing the argument that the transactions were a device to defeat . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 April 2021; Ref: scu.79137

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte Law Society: CA 11 Aug 1993

Lord Chancellor is free to impose a fee scheme if it accords with the words of the Act. The standard fees regulations for magistrates Courts works are within the Lord Chancellor’s powers.
Times 11-Aug-1993, Independent 24-Sep-1993
Legal Aid Act 1988 34
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (1) QBD 4-May-1993
The introduction of a Standard Criminal Legal Aid fees regime was within the Lord Chancellor’s proper range of discretion, even without consultation with the Law Society.
The meaning of ‘carried entering UK’ can include clothing being worn, but . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.87216

Middleton v Middleton: CA 10 Jan 1994

Legal Aid Act gives no power to extend time for filing affidavit under regulations.
Ind Summary 10-Jan-1994
Legal Aid Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMiddleton v Middleton FD 4-Jun-1993
The court can extend the time for filing an affidavit re an order for costs against the Legal Aid Board. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toMiddleton v Middleton FD 4-Jun-1993
The court can extend the time for filing an affidavit re an order for costs against the Legal Aid Board. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.83699

Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board: CA 21 Oct 1994

The standard practice of not awarding costs in children cases overrides the possibility of making a hardship order from Landlord. Costs orders are unusual in custody disputes and no order was to be made against the Legal Aid Board in favour of an unassisted party.
Neill LJ said: ‘In the last decade, however, it has become the general practice in proceedings relating to the custody and care and control of children to make no order as to the costs of the proceedings except in exceptional circumstances’, but it was ‘unnecessary and undesirable to try to limit or place into rigid categories the cases which a court might regard as suitable for such an award’.
Neill LJ
Times 28-Oct-1994, Independent 21-Oct-1994, [1995] 1 FLR 259
Legal Aid Act 1988 18(4)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
CitedRe S (A Child) SC 25-Mar-2015
The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.82702

The Lord Chancellor v Alexander Johnson and Co Solicitors and Another: QBD 29 Jul 2011

The court was asked whether the respondents, a firm of solicitors and a barrister, are in respect of acting on behalf of Aaron Phillips in certain criminal proceedings entitled to fees payable under the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme (GFS) or under the Very High Costs Cases (VHCC) scheme. The issue involves a point of interpretation of the Criminal Defence Services (Funding) Order 2007 as amended.
Davis J
[2011] EWHC 2113 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.442461

Legal Services Commission v Pugh (Charges and Charging Orders): LRA 21 Dec 2007

LRA Claimant with legal aid obtains a partial right of way to her property in settlement of a dispute as to her rights of access. Legal Services Commission not entitled to charge over her property under section 10(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
[2007] EWLandRA 2006 – 1672
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 10(7)
England and Wales

Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.429581

Stein v Blake: HL 18 May 1995

Where A and B each have claims against each other and A is insolvent, the common amount is set off, and the net difference remains as a debt due.
Hoffmann L said: ‘It is a matter of common occurrence for an individual to become insolvent while attempting to pursue a claim against someone else. In some cases, the bankruptcy will itself have been caused by the failure of the other party to meet his obligations. In many more cases, this will be the view of the bankrupt. It is not unusual in such circumstances for there to be a difference of opinion between the trustee and the bankrupt over whether a claim should be pursued. The trustee may have nothing in his hands with which to fund litigation. Even if he has, he must act in the interests of creditors generally and the creditors will often prefer to receive an immediate distribution rather than see the bankrupt’s assets ventured on the costs of litigation which may or may not yield a larger distribution at some future date. The bankrupt, with nothing more to lose, tends to take a more sanguine view of the prospects of success. In such a case the trustee may decide, as in this case, that the practical course in the interests of all concerned (apart from the defendant) is to assign the claim to the bankrupt and let him pursue it for himself, on terms that he accounts to the trustee for some proportion of the proceeds.
It is understandable that a defendant who does not share the bankrupt’s view of the merits of the claim may be disappointed to find that notwithstanding the bankruptcy, which he thought would result in a practical commercial decision by an independent trustee to discontinue the proceedings, the action is still being pursued by the bankrupt. His disappointment is increased if he finds that the bankrupt as plaintiff in his own name has the benefit of legal aid which would not have been available to the trustee. Similar considerations apply to an assignment of a right of action by the liquidator of an insolvent company to a shareholder or former director. In such a case there is the further point that the company as plaintiff can be required to give security for costs. The shareholder assignee as an individual cannot be required to give security even if (either because he does not qualify or the Legal Aid Board considers that the claim has no merits) he is not in receipt of legal aid’.
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann
Independent 19-May-1995, Times 19-May-1995, [1996] 1 AC 243, [1995] UKHL 11, [1995] 2 All ER 961, [1995] 2 WLR 710, [1995] 2 BCLC 94
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 323
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromStein v Blake CA 13-May-1993
The plaintiff argued that: ‘Nothing in the wording of section 323 changes the nature of set-off as it operates between solvent parties; it merely widens the categories of claim capable of being, and which must be, set off.’
Held: The decision . .

Cited by:
AppliedCircuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken Redac (Uk) Ltd CA 5-Apr-1996
The assignment of a debt by a company in liquidation to a significant shareholder, in order to allow him to make an application for legal aid, and to avoid having to give security for costs and to allow the action to proceed was not unlawful, but . .
CitedMulkerrins v Pricewaterhouse Coopers HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages from her former accountants for failing to protect her from bankruptcy. The receiver had unnecessarily caused great difficulties in making their claim that such an action vested in them. The defendants had subsequently, . .
CitedSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Frid HL 13-May-2004
The company went into insolvent liquidation. The secretary of state was to make payments to employees and there were other state preferential creditors. At the same time a refund of VAT was due from the Commissioners of customs and Excise.
CitedFuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd and Another ChD 6-Mar-2001
A tenant complained to the landlord about his failure to repair. He ceased paying rent, and the landlord eventually distrained for rent by direct action.
Held: The tenant was unable to claim a legal set-off because there was no context of . .
See AlsoStein v Blake and others CA 13-Oct-1997
The defendants challenged leave to appeal given to the plaintiff against dismissal of his claim following the Prudential Assurance case.
Held: The issue was whether the plaintiff can recover the loss which he has allegedly sustained by reason . .
See AlsoStein v Blake and others CA 13-Oct-1997
The defendants challenged leave to appeal given to the plaintiff against dismissal of his claim following the Prudential Assurance case.
Held: The issue was whether the plaintiff can recover the loss which he has allegedly sustained by reason . .
See AlsoStein v Blake ChD 31-Oct-2000
When a Legal Aid certificate was withdrawn, leading to an opposing party suffering abortive costs in continuing the action, it was not a duty of the Legal Services Commission to inform the opposing side. They would have no access to arrangements . .
CitedIn re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd SC 19-Oct-2011
The bank had been put into administrative receivership, and the court was now asked as to how distributions were to be made, and in particular as to the application of the equitable rule in Cherry v Boultbee in the rule against double proof as it . .
CitedLB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.89537

Richards v The Legal Services Commission: Admn 19 Jul 2006

The claimant challenged the inclusion in her gross income for calculation of her eligibility to legal aid of maintenance payments received for her children who were both at University. She said that since she had responsibility for their maintenance, and they were studying away from home, they were not part of her household, and a deduction could be made.
Held: ‘whether a child remains a member of a household is just as much a function of attitude (and, perhaps, emotion) as an application of a simple test of hours spent in the home. A student taking a gap year prior to university may not set foot in his or her parents’ home for an entire year, but could still remain a member of the household. In each case, the question is one of fact having regard to all the circumstances of residence, relationship and ties. ‘ The court could not say that the LSC had not been entitled to conclude that the sons remained part of the household.
[2006] EWHC 1809 (Admin)
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999, Community Legal Service (Financial) Regulations 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Birmingham Juvenile Court Ex Parte S 1984
The court considered what was meant by the term ‘household’: ‘at the heart of the concept it is the persons who comprise the household . . and not the place where the household is located as a matter of residence.’ . .
CitedLondon Borough of Hackney v Ezedinma QBD 1981
The house had rooms let for students in the basement and on the ground, first and second floors, with kitchens on the top three floors to serve the rooms. Five rooms had been let when the authority issued a notice under section 19(1) to restrict the . .
CitedSimmons v Pizzey HL 1979
As to houses in multiple occupation, ‘both the expression ‘household’ and membership of it is a question of fact and degree, there being no certain indicia the presence or absence of any of which is by itself conclusive’. After reference to the the . .
CitedEngland v Secretary of State for Social Services 1982
Although the children spent weekdays in voluntary care because the parents were at work, their bedrooms were maintained, they saw their parents on the weekend, and the arrangement was not intended as permanent. The court was asked whether they . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243328

DN (By her Father and Litigation Friend RN) v London Borough of Greenwich: CA 8 Dec 2004

The defendant sought to appeal her case.
Held: There were serious deficiencies in the way her case had been prepared as a result of severe limitations on the public funding available to conduct the case. The trial process could not in this case be seen as satisfactory.
Lord Justice Brooke Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice May The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)
[2004] EWCA Civ 1659, Times 23-Dec-2004
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.220213

Fowler De Pledge (A Firm) v Smith: CA 20 May 2003

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.
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
[2003] EWCA Civ 703, Times 27-May-2003, Gazette 31-Jul-2003
Bailii
Legal Aid Act 1988 17
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedChaggar v Chaggar CA 1997
When considering making an order that an assisted person make a contribution to costs, the task of the court is set out in s 17: it is to decide the assisted parties’ liability for costs. Those costs must not exceed that which it is reasonable for . .
CitedCrystall v Crystall CA 1963
When considering an order that a legally aided party should pay all or part of any costs, one of the circumstances, and a compelling circumstance, is the means of the party himself. Whatever one may think of the conduct of a party it would still not . .
CitedGooday v Gooday CA 1968
The court considered whether it was appropriate to order a contribution to costs from a legally aided party.
Held: Although the judge was correct that the wife should not have persisted in bringing a hopeless case against the husband, the 1949 . .

Cited by:
CitedSouthern and District Finance Plc v Turner CA 7-Nov-2003
The defendant sought to assert that the agreement under which possession of her house was sought was an extortionate credit bargain. She had to obtain leave to appeal out of time.
Held: The rules required an application to be supported by . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.182342

A v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 2002

The applicant complained that the absence of legal aid to allow a challenge what had been said about her in Parliament by way of defamation, violated her right of access to court.
Held: The right to absolute parliamentary privilege was within the margin of freedom enjoyed by a nation state. The applicant was not left entirely without remedy, and the freedom of parliament was properly to be protected. As to the availability of legal aid, limited legal advice was available, and a conditional fee arrangement might also have been available. ‘However, the right of access to court is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State. In this respect, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, although the final decision as to the observance of the Convention’s requirements rests with the Court. It must be satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6(1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.’
Times 28-Dec-2002, 35373/97, [2002] ECHR 805, (2002) 36 EHRR 917, [2002] ECHR 811
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6 8.1
Cited by:
CitedGray v Avadis QBD 30-Jul-2003
The claimant had made complaints against the defendant solicitor to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. In answer the defendant made assertions about the claimant’s mental health, and she now sought to bring action iin defamation on those . .
CitedPolanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
CitedWestcott v Westcott CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
CitedGoodwin v NGN Ltd and VBN QBD 9-Jun-2011
goodwin_ngn4QBD11
The claimant had obtained an injunction preventing publication of his name and that of his coworker with whom he had had an affair. After widespread publication of his name elsewhere, the defendant had secured the discharge of the order as regards . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.178596

Richard Hinds v The Attorney General and The Superintendent of Glendairy Prison: PC 5 Dec 2001

(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.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Murray Stuart-Smith Sir KennethKeith
Appeal No 28 0f 2000, [2001] UKPC 56
PC, PC, Bailii
Citing:
CitedMohammed (Allie) v The State PC 9-Dec-1998
(Trinidad and Tobago) A failure to inform a suspect before interview of his right to see a lawyer did not make the interview inadmissible despite the constitutional infringement. It was not as serious as a failure to give fair trial. The judge’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.167071

Stein v Blake: ChD 31 Oct 2000

When a Legal Aid certificate was withdrawn, leading to an opposing party suffering abortive costs in continuing the action, it was not a duty of the Legal Services Commission to inform the opposing side. They would have no access to arrangements made by the formerly assisted person for continuing the action or otherwise, and the duty must fall on the solicitor appointed to act.
Times 31-Oct-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoStein v Blake CA 13-May-1993
The plaintiff argued that: ‘Nothing in the wording of section 323 changes the nature of set-off as it operates between solvent parties; it merely widens the categories of claim capable of being, and which must be, set off.’
Held: The decision . .
Times 13-May-93, [1994] Ch 16
See AlsoStein v Blake HL 18-May-1995
Where A and B each have claims against each other and A is insolvent, the common amount is set off, and the net difference remains as a debt due.
Hoffmann L said: ‘It is a matter of common occurrence for an individual to become insolvent while . .
Independent 19-May-95, Times 19-May-95, [1996] 1 AC 243, [1995] UKHL 11, [1995] 2 All ER 961, [1995] 2 WLR 710, [1995] 2 BCLC 94
See AlsoStein v Blake and others CA 13-Oct-1997
The defendants challenged leave to appeal given to the plaintiff against dismissal of his claim following the Prudential Assurance case.
Held: The issue was whether the plaintiff can recover the loss which he has allegedly sustained by reason . .
[1997] EWCA Civ 2474, [1998] 1 All ER 724, [1997] EWCA Civ 4002, [1998] 1 BCLC 573, [1998] BCC 316

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 December 2020; Ref: scu.89540

Stacey v Player and Another: ChD 23 Feb 2001

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.
Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 23-Feb-2001
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 64
England and Wales

Updated: 19 December 2020; Ref: scu.89479

Regina v Chester and North Wales Legal Aid Area Office Ex Parte Floods of Queensbury Ltd: QBD 7 Nov 1997

It was possible for a body to apply for legal aid but only if it was genuinely acting in a fiduciary capacity as trustee, not mere contractual representative.
Times 07-Nov-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 883
Bailii
Legal Aid Act 1974 2(10), Legal Aid Act 1988 2(10)
Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Chester and North Wales Legal Aid Area Office (No 12) ex parte Floods of Queensferry Limited CA 18-Dec-1997
A company was not entitled to legal aid unless it was clearly acting in a fiduciary capacity; that the assignment of an action is invalid is insufficient to warrant a grant. . .
Times 26-Dec-97, Gazette 28-Jan-98, [1997] EWCA Civ 3043

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.86343

E v Legal Aid Board, Ex P W et Al (Minors): QBD 25 Nov 1999

The legal aid board could refuse to grant legal aid to children involved in proceedings to refuse contact to a parent, because the regulations which applied were sufficiently widely drawn to allow a discretion to the local authority to pay the costs. In such circumstances it was not unreasonable for legal aid to be refused.
Times 25-Nov-1999
Guardians ad Litem Reporting Officers (Panels) Regulations 1991 (1991 No 205) 9, Children Act 1989 41(9), Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (1991 No 1247) 4.23

Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.80202

Drummond and Co v Lamb and Others; Drummond and Co, WS v Scottish Legal Aid Board: HL 29 Apr 1992

The cost of excess work carried out under the green form scheme, was not recoverable despite the LAB’s subsequent approval of the action.
Gazette 29-Apr-1992, [1992] UKHL 13, 1992 SC (HL) 1, [1992] 1 WLR 163, 1992 SLT 337
Bailii
Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 10
Scotland

Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.80137

Advanced Technology Structures Ltd v Cray Technology Ltd: CA 22 Feb 1993

There should be no legal aid for a company’s nominee to bring what were, in effect, company proceedings. Parliament had deliberately excluded such assistance, and it should not be circumvented by the company assigning its rights in action to a nominee.
Ind Summary 22-Feb-1993
Legal Aid Act 1974
England and Wales

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.77658

General Accident Car and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd v Foster: CA 1972

The court considered the use of the word ‘proceedings’ in the 1964 Act: ‘The first point is: what are the ‘proceedings’? Are they the proceedings from beginning to end – from the very first time when legal aid was granted? I think not. The only ‘proceedings’ with which we are concerned is the interlocutory appeal to this court, which we heard on 19 January 1971′ (Lord Denning MR)
Lord Denning MR
[1972] 3 All ER 877
Legal Aid Act 1964
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMasterman-Lister v Brutton and Co and Another (2) CA 16-Jan-2003
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 . .
[2003] EWCA Civ 70, [2003] 1 WLR 1511

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.241422

Gooday v Gooday: CA 1968

The court considered whether it was appropriate to order a contribution to costs from a legally aided party.
Held: Although the judge was correct that the wife should not have persisted in bringing a hopeless case against the husband, the 1949 Act also required him to consider the means of all the parties, and the order for andpound;200 was more than was reasonable in the circumstances.
Diplock LJ
[1968] 3 All ER 611
Legal Aid Act 1949 2(2)(c)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedFowler De Pledge (A Firm) v Smith CA 20-May-2003
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 . .
[2003] EWCA Civ 703, Times 27-May-03, Gazette 31-Jul-03

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.182738

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (2): QBD 22 Jun 1993

The introduction of a Standard Fees Criminal Legal Aid regime did not require prior consultation with the Law Society. The rules had been imposed in accordance with the words of the enabling statute.
Independent 22-Jun-1993, Times 25-Jun-1993
Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.163155

Waterford Wedgewood plc and an v David Nagli Ltd (in liquidation) et al: ChD 4 Jan 1999

When considering the resources of a legally aided person against whom a costs order is to be made, the fact that a spouse’s assets are included when calculating eligibility for legal aid does not mean that they should be included for this purpose also.
Times 04-Jan-1999
Legal Aid Act 1974 17

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.90315

Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy and Others: ChD 13 Jan 2000

Once a legal aid certificate is revoked the party is deemed by statute never to have had the benefit of a legal aid certificate. The rules relating to assessment of costs which applied when a party had legal aid did not therefore apply. An order however which has once been made cannot be varied subsequently by reference to those rules, even if the order was made in the light of them.
Times 19-Jan-2000, Gazette 13-Jan-2000
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 130, Civil Procedure Rules Part 3.1(7)

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.79884

Hicks v Russell Jones and Walker: 27 Oct 2000

Robert Walker LJ
Unreported, 27 October 2000
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Hill v Bailey ChD 25-Nov-2003
    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 . .
    Times 05-Jan-04, Gazette 15-Jan-04, [2004] 1 All ER 1210, [2003] EWHC 2835 (Ch), [2004] 1 All ER 1210, [2004] CP Rep 24, [2004] 1 Costs LR 135
  • 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 . .
    [2004] EWCA Civ 1342, Times 20-Oct-04

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.190232

Chaggar v Chaggar: CA 1997

When considering making an order that an assisted person make a contribution to costs, the task of the court is set out in s 17: it is to decide the assisted parties’ liability for costs. Those costs must not exceed that which it is reasonable for the party to pay in all the circumstance. All the circumstances have to be taken into account, including the financial resources of both parties taking into account regulation 126. The court should consider the parties’ disposable income and disposable capital excluding the assets referred to in the regulations.
Aldous LJ, Phillips LJ
[1997] 1 All ER 104
Legal Aid Act 1988 17
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Fowler De Pledge (A Firm) v Smith CA 20-May-2003
    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 . .
    [2003] EWCA Civ 703, Times 27-May-03, Gazette 31-Jul-03

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.182739

Regina v Legal Aid Board Ex Parte R M Broudie and Co: QBD 24 Nov 1994

LAB may refuse enhanced rates without opportunity for representations.
Times 24-Nov-1994
England and Wales
Citing:

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.87161

In Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of Costs): CA 2001

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’.’
Hale LJ
[2001] 1 FLR 602
Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1991, Civil Procedure Rules
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Floyd and Another v Legal Services Commission QBD 28-Apr-2010
    floyd_lsc10
    The claimant had succeeded in an action against her legally aided opponent, but then delayed in making her claim for costs against the respondent. The costs judge said that the CPR did not apply, and that he had no discretion to extend the time . .
    [2010] EWHC 906 (QB)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.408768

Sayers and Other v Smithkline Beecham plc and others: QBD 30 Jul 2004

In group litigation in respect of the MMR vaccinne, certain lead claimants had had their legal aid withdrawn.
Held: They would be allowed to withdraw from the action and would not require the permission of the court.
Keith J
Times 22-Oct-2004
England and Wales

Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.220018

Re A Debtor: CA 9 Feb 1981

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.’
Templeman LJ
Times 19-Feb-1981
England and Wales
Cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.216496

K Zaman Ali and Co v The Lord Chancellor; (Regina v Zaka): SCCO 26 Oct 2001

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.
References: [2001] EW Costs 12
Judges: Mr Justice Butterfield sitting without Assessors
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.185952

R M Broudle and Co (A Firm) v Lord Chancellor: CA 4 Jul 2000

A criminal legal aid order came to an end when a single judge refused leave to appeal. The costs of an application to renew to the full court could only be met if the full court so agreed. The determining officer has followed this as consistent policy which was not to be changed by the case of R v Gibson ((1983) 77 Cr App R 151.
References: Times 04-Jul-2000
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.85634

In the Matter of an Application for Costs Against Legal Aid Board; Lancashire Fires Ltd v S A Lyons and Co Ltd and Others (No 2): CA 23 Jul 1999

An application for payment of a successful party’s costs out of the Legal Aid Fund should normally be made at the end of a trial, but it might well be made later when it proved impossible to recover costs against other parties to the action. In this case the delay did prevent it being just and equitable to make the order.
References: Times 23-Jul-1999, Gazette 28-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1718
Statutes: Legal Aid Act 1974 18
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.82916

Bradstock Trustee Services Ltd v Nabarro Nathanson: ChD 1995

The plaintiffs were trustees of an occupational pension scheme. It began professional negligence proceedings to recover an expected surplus paid to the employer by the solicitors whose advice had been acted on. The anticipated costs were disproportionate, so the case was assigned with the consent of the court to beneficiaries who sued under legal aid. They then applied to the court to be substituted as plaintiffs.
Held: The application failed. The trustees had not failed in the performance of their duty to protect the trust estate by declining to continue the action and the applicants had no cause of action against the solicitors since they had no legal or equitable property in the subject-matter of the action. They were simply beneficiaries of any property recovered by the trustees. The trust estate would probably be liable for costs if the action failed and there was nothing in the rules of court to justify handing over the conduct of the action against the third party and accordingly he had no jurisdiction to make the orders sought.
References: [1995] 1 WLR 1405
Judges: Baker QC J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
    The claimant sought damages in negligence against solicitors who had advised the executors in an estate of which he was a beneficiary. He now sought to amend his claim to make a claim in his personal and in derivative capacities. Sums had been paid . .
    (, [2008] EWCA Civ 803, Times 18-Aug-08, [2009] 1 WLR 531, [2008] WTLR 1429, [2009] PNLR 2, [2009] CP Rep 3)
  • Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
    The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .
    ([2010] WLR (D) 130, , , [2010] UKSC 22, , , , [2010] PNLR 30, [2010] WTLR 1223, [2010] 2 WLR 1227, [2011] AC 240)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.279804

Regina v Legal Aid Board No 15 Area (Merseyside), Ex Parte European Community: QBD 6 May 1998

LAB had the power to give prior authorisation to allow payment of travel expenses of assisted person to visit expert to assist in preparation of expert report where assisted person unable to afford travel.
References: Times 06-May-1998
Statutes: Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 339)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.88530

Regina v Selby Justices, ex parte Daltry: QBD 1 Dec 2000

If a court laid a charge of contempt of court, legal aid should normally be granted to the defendant. It was wrong, first to hear representations which led to the charge of contempt being withdrawn, and then to decide that legal aid should not be granted because it was no longer necessary. The effect of this practice would be that legal aid would only be available for sentence for contempt. Contempt is a potentially serious matter and a defendant will generally require representation.
References: Gazette 07-Dec-2000, Times 01-Dec-2000

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.88000

Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Gilchrist: QBD 9 Jun 1993

A scheme to use company references for Police Station Own Solicitor duty solicitor work was lawful.
References: Gazette 09-Jun-1993
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Gilchrist CA 8-Mar-1994
    A Solicitor giving advice as a Duty Solicitor via a telephone re-routing service was acting in his own right and within the regulations. . .
    (Times 08-Mar-94)

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Gilchrist CA 8-Mar-1994
    A Solicitor giving advice as a Duty Solicitor via a telephone re-routing service was acting in his own right and within the regulations. . .
    (Times 08-Mar-94)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.87156

Regina v Legal Aid Board No 15 Area (Merseyside), ex parte Eccleston: QBD 20 May 1998

LAB had the power to give prior authorisation to allow payment of travel expenses of assisted person to visit expert to assist in preparation of expert report where assisted person unable to afford travel.
References: Gazette 20-May-1998
Statutes: Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 339)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.87165

Regina v Legal Aid Board, ex parte Nicholson: QBD 24 Jun 1994

A Legal Aid certificate may be amended after judgment had been given to name a new solicitor.
References: Times 24-Jun-1994
This case cites:

  • See Also – Regina v The Law Society, Ex parte Nicholson 22-Feb-1985
    A legal aid committee could not refuse legal aid under this provision solely on the ground that the applicant had acquired the cause of action by assignment from an insolvent company, without having regard to the other circumstances of the case. . .
    (Unreported, 22 February 1985)

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Regina v The Law Society, Ex parte Nicholson 22-Feb-1985
    A legal aid committee could not refuse legal aid under this provision solely on the ground that the applicant had acquired the cause of action by assignment from an insolvent company, without having regard to the other circumstances of the case. . .
    (Unreported, 22 February 1985)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.87169

Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex Parte C (A Child): QBD 26 Apr 2000

An appeal to the local education authority against a decision not to grant a place at the parents choice of primary school, because it would require additional resources to provide for larger class sizes, is by way of review, and not by way of a rehearing. Accordingly the appeal committee should base its decision on the information available on the original decision together with any information of which they should have been aware.
References: Times 26-Apr-2000
Statutes: Education Act 1966 (Infant Class Sizes) (Modification) Regulations 1998 (1998 no 1948)
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another, Ex Parte JC (A Child) CA 10-Aug-2000
    The restrictions placed upon the maximum class sizes in turn restricted the rights of parents to appeal against refusal of a school place. It is for the parent to satisfy the original admissions committee and the appeal committee of the need for a . .
    (Times 10-Aug-00, Gazette 31-Aug-00, [2001] ELR 21, [2001] LGR 146)

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another, Ex Parte JC (A Child) CA 10-Aug-2000
    The restrictions placed upon the maximum class sizes in turn restricted the rights of parents to appeal against refusal of a school place. It is for the parent to satisfy the original admissions committee and the appeal committee of the need for a . .
    (Times 10-Aug-00, Gazette 31-Aug-00, [2001] ELR 21, [2001] LGR 146)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.85462

Murria v Lord Chancellor: QBD 11 Jan 2000

The test, when assessing the rate of pay for legal aid purposes of whether a case ‘related to fraud’ was whether the proceedings, in whole or in part, were about serious or complex fraud, irrespective of the contents of the indictment. There is no general offence known to law of fraud as such and the act could only be intended to relate to such issues in a wider sense than the content of the indictment.
References: Times 11-Jan-2000, Gazette 20-Jan-2000
Statutes: Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) Regulations 1989 (1989 No 344)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.84141

Microsoft Corporation v Backslash Distribution Ltd et Al: ChD 15 Mar 1999

Legal Aid Regulations providing that a legally aided defendant could in some circumstances be ordered to pay the costs of a prosecution after a contempt and on an indemnity basis were not invalid. An award of a gross sum in lieu of part costs was not proper.
References: Times 15-Mar-1999
Statutes: Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 103 24

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.83692

Middleton v Middleton: FD 4 Jun 1993

The court can extend the time for filing an affidavit re an order for costs against the Legal Aid Board.
References: Times 04-Jun-1993
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Middleton v Middleton CA 10-Jan-1994
    Legal Aid Act gives no power to extend time for filing affidavit under regulations. . .
    (Ind Summary 10-Jan-94)

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Middleton v Middleton CA 10-Jan-1994
    Legal Aid Act gives no power to extend time for filing affidavit under regulations. . .
    (Ind Summary 10-Jan-94)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.83700

Northamptonshire County Council and Another v The Lord Chancellor (Via The Legal Aid Agency): FD 5 Jun 2018

The court considered the circumstances in which damages recovered pursuant to the Human Rights Act in respect of breaches of duty by a Local Authority following care proceedings are subject to the Legal Aid Agency statutory charge in respect of the costs of those care proceedings.
References: [2018] EWHC 1628 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Francis J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621049

The Law Society, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor: Admn 3 Aug 2018

Claim for judicial review of a decision by the Lord Chancellor to reduce the amount of money made available as legal aid for defending people accused of crimes. The decision challenged in these proceedings has reduced fees payable under a scheme called the Litigators’ Graduated Fees Scheme under which most of the work done by ‘litigators’ (typically solicitors) in preparing the defence of persons prosecuted in the Crown Court is paid.
References: [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Leggatt LJ, Carr DBE J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620667

Flannigan, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework The Lord Chancellor: Admn 25 Jul 2018

Application for Judicial Review of decisions made by the Director of Legal Aid Casework (the first Defendant) requiring Mr Flannigan to reimburse legal costs paid to lawyers acting for Mr Flannigan in defence of certain criminal charges.
References: [2018] EWHC 1927 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Bird HHJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620642

Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Legal Aid Casework: CA 19 Jul 2018

Claim challenging application of statutory charge extinguishing damages award.
References: [2018] EWCA Civ 1656, [2018] WLR(D) 459
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Longmore, Peter Jackson, Asplin LJJ
Statutes: Community Legal Service (Financial) Regulations 2000
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620463

Law Centres Federation Limited (T/A Law Centres Network), Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor: Admn 22 Jun 2018

Claim for judicial review of two decisions made by the Defendant in connection with the provision of legal services under those Housing Possession Court Duty (‘HPCD’) schemes which are funded by Legal Aid.
References: [2018] EWHC 1588 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619912

Jan Salplachta: ECJ 26 Jul 2017

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Access to justice in cross-border cases – Directive 2003/8 / EC – Common minimum rules on legal aid in such cases – Application – Regulation of a Member State providing for the non-reimbursable nature of the costs of translating the related documents necessary for the processing of an application for legal aid
References: C-670/15, [2017] EUECJ C-670/15
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 11 November 2020; Ref: scu.591347