header-logo header-logo

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

Accessing justice

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

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll