header-logo header-logo

24 February 2015 / Simon Blain
Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

A false economy

The judiciary is expressing alarm at the unintended consequences of the family legal aid cuts, says Simon Blain

The Court of Appeal has expressed concern about the unforeseen consequences of the government’s decision to remove public funding for the majority of family proceedings. 

In the case of L v R [2015] EWCA Civ 61, [2015] All ER (D) 110 (Feb) Lord Justice Aikens and Lady Justices Black and King were faced by a husband litigant in person and an unrepresented wife, who did not attend court. Both parties had petitioned for divorce, on the basis of the other’s unreasonable behaviour. At a case management hearing in the county court, the divorce had been allowed to proceed on the basis of the wife’s petition.

The husband appealed. Black LJ, giving the lead judgment, found that the husband’s application was improperly made, and that the Court of Appeal should not, in any event, interfere lightly in case management decisions. She noted that the divorce proceedings had taken nearly two years, and that there were ample grounds for the

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll