header-logo header-logo

Accessing justice

29 April 2010 / George Gordon
Issue: 7415 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Pro bono costs orders: levelling the playing field? By George Gordon

Section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 came into force on 1 October 2008 and permitted a departure from the indemnity principle of costs for a party whose legal representation was provided pro bono (as long as its opponent was paying for its representation).

It was widely hoped that three principal benefits would be derived from the change in the law:
(i) that the threat of costs would be a weapon in the armoury of the pro bono litigant, thereby establishing equality of arms;
(ii) that all income from successful Pro Bono Costs Orders could be ploughed back into facilitating further pro bono activities;
(iii) that the Access to Justice Foundation, which controls the distribution of all money generated from pro bono costs orders, could develop a nationwide strategic policy on how best to nurture pro bono activities on the basis of need.

The availability of pro bono costs orders has been enshrined in Pt 44 of the Civil

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll