header-logo header-logo

Community legal service funding

14 April 2011
Issue: 7461 + 7462 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

F and others v Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 899 (QB), [2011] All ER (D) 95 (Apr)

Whether someone would suffer financial hardship if their costs were not reimbursed by the losing party was a question of fact and degree. There was no absolute standard by which that could be judged, nor that whether someone had suffered or would suffer financial hardship should be gauged against the criteria laid down for determining whether a person was eligible for public funding in order to bring a claim. If there was to be an absolute standard, it was reasonable to ask what it was.

If Parliament had intended there to be one, or had wished to provide specific criteria against which financial hardship should be judged (whether absolute or otherwise) then it would and could have so provided in the Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/824. There had been a deliberate and significant relaxation of the formerly stringent test by the removal of the word “severe”.

There was an obvious difficulty in

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll