header-logo header-logo

28 September 2017
Issue: 7763 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Bach’s big idea welcome

nlj_7763_robins

Commission urges all parties to support a Right to Justice Act

Lawyers have given a warm welcome to the Bach Commission’s final report on access to justice, which calls for a ‘right to justice’ to be enshrined in law.

Former Justice minister Lord Bach, who headed the commission, urged all parties to support a Right to Justice Act that would create a new right for individuals ‘to receive reasonable legal assistance without costs they cannot afford’.

Andrew Langdon QC, Bar Council chair, said: ‘Lord Bach makes the important point that the rule of law and legal rights do not mean much unless citizens are able, through the legal system, to have them upheld, and that cuts to legal aid have made that impossible for many, especially the most vulnerable in society.’

CILEx President Milicent Grant said the report showed ‘ambitious thinking’, and highlighted the essential need for ‘a well-functioning market of independent legal service providers’ to achieve meaningful access to justice.

Writing in NLJ this week, columnist Jon Robins notes that the proportion of the population eligible for legal aid fell from eight out of 10 people in 1980 to less than one third of the population in 2007, and now stands at about one in five of us.

Lord Bach calls on the government to conduct its long-awaited review of LASPO which cut legal aid for large areas of civil and family law in 2013.

Robins says: ‘The report recommends introducing early legal help to pre-LASPO levels across the board and makes the case for widening scope to include all matters concerning children, as well as reinstating legal aid for areas of family law and immigration law. It proposes public funding for bereaved families in inquests and scrapping rules limiting funding for judicial review.’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll