header-logo header-logo

21 January 2026
Issue: 8146 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Legal aid focus , Competition , Charities
printer mail-detail

CAT pays dividends for Access to Justice Foundation

Free legal advice services are on track to receive a £3.9m bonanza arising from the ‘boundary fares’ settlement
The Access to Justice Foundation (AJF) is launching an unrestricted three-year funding programme, ‘Improving lives through advice 2026’, ‘with the aim of increasing access to justice for those who need it most’.

The grants distribute funds allocated to the AJF as the nominated recipient of unclaimed damages from the settlement in Justin Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains Ltd and Stagecoach South Western Trains. The £3.7m settlement, one of the first from an opt-out class action, was agreed by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in May 2024.

Free legal advice services in London, south east England, Wales and Scotland are eligible to apply between 16 February and 16 March, with grants due to start in June. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll