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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll