header-logo header-logo

22 March 2018
Issue: 7786 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Calls for review of legal aid means test

Law Society claims current test excludes those below the poverty line

The Law Society has launched a campaign for a review of the financial eligibility test for civil legal aid, referencing Unison’s legal victory on tribunal fees.

New research commissioned by the Law Society and produced by Professor Donald Hirsch of Loughborough University reveals that people on incomes 10% to 30% below the poverty line are being excluded from legal aid. Consequently, many impoverished families are unable to obtain legal help to tackle issues such as eviction, housing disrepair and debt.

The Law Society points out that the Supreme Court held, in July 2017, that employment tribunal fees were unlawful because households on low incomes were expected to sacrifice ‘ordinary and reasonable expenditure for substantial periods of time’ to save for legal costs, R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51. It argues that the formula to determine eligibility for legal aid has the same effect as tribunal fees.

‘The financial eligibility test for civil legal aid is disqualifying people from receiving badly-needed legal advice and representation, even though they are already below the poverty line,’ said Law Society president Joe Egan.

‘The position has been getting progressively worse, because the means test thresholds have been frozen since 2010, while the cost of living, of course, has not.’

Egan called on the Ministry of Justice to review the means-testing regime and restore it to its 2010 real-terms level—prior to 2010, the means test levels were uprated every year in line with inflation—and to exempt those on means-tested benefits from capital assessment.

Capital assessment takes account of the equity in people’s homes and excludes those who have savings or assets worth more than £8,000, or in some cases, £3,000.

Professor Hirsch said: ‘The assumption that someone could sell their home to cover a legal bill is out of line with other forms of state means-testing, such as help with care costs.’

Issue: 7786 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll