header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 November 2015 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7677 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

A costly clash

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7677_pamplin

Chris Pamplin looks at a case where the Legal Aid Agency thought it could override the will of the court

The decline and fall of the legal aid system in England and Wales has been seen in legal circles as one of the most lamentable episodes in law reform in recent years. Dubbed by The Guardian as “the forgotten pillar of the Welfare State”, legal aid has been firmly in the firing line since 2010 when Kenneth Clarke, the then Justice Secretary, promised to cut civil legal aid by a further £350m by 2015.

What the Ministry of Justice calls “reforms” have seen whole categories of law taken out of scope for legal aid funding. One such category is family law, where legal aid is now only available with evidence of domestic violence, forced marriage or abduction. As a result, two thirds of parties to family law proceedings now represent themselves.

The debate rages on about how far this is a positive or negative change for our justice system. What is clear, though,

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll