header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-detail

Family legal aid warning

High Court victory tempered by questions over future progress

The family legal aid tendering round was “unfair, unlawful and irrational”, the High Court has ruled.

The judgment, delivered last week by Mr Justice Moses, quashes the outcome of the recent tender round, under which firms bid against each other for a share of available legal aid work. The result, due to be implemented next week, would have seen the number of firms contracted to supply family legal aid cut from 2,400 to 1,300.

Family law firms that had a contract with the LSC prior to the tendering round will now continue for an as yet unspecified time.

The Law Society brought the judicial review, R (Law Society) v Legal Services Commission, after lawyers warned the cuts would lead to a legal advice shortfall among many members of the public.

A jubilant Linda Lee, president of the Law Society, said the court win was a victory for “thousands of families”. The tendering round “would have translated into thousands of people facing grave difficulty in obtaining justice—ordinary

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
FIFA’s 2026 Men's World Cup is already mired in controversy, with complaints over ‘excessive prices’ and opaque ticketing. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dr Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys warns that governing bodies may face scrutiny under EU competition law, with allegations of a ‘dominant—if not monopolistic—position’ in ticket sales
Ten years after Brexit, UK and EU trade mark regimes are drifting apart in practice if not principle. Writing in NLJ this week, Roger Lush and Lara Elder of Carpmaels & Ransford highlight tighter UK scrutiny after SkyKick, where overly broad filings may signal ‘bad faith’
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
back-to-top-scroll