header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

A heavy cost?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
16 June 2013 / David Burrows
Categories: Features , Family , Costs , Jackson , LASPO 2012
printer mail-detail

David Burrows reviews how LASPO has changed the funding landscape of family litigation

Costs D-Day – 1 April 2013 – brought limited changes for the family lawyer as a direct result of the Jackson reforms to the CPR 1998 costs rules introduced by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 (CP(A)R 2013). However, for the family lawyer with a legal aid practice, the funding landscape changes completely under Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).

Costs can mean two different things:
• what a client pays to a lawyer to run his or her case (funding); or
• the sum of money which is ordered to be paid by one party to another (costs) for their expense on the proceedings (mostly for lawyers).

This article considers costs in both senses in the context of family proceedings. It will be recalled that the costs rules for civil proceedings are applied in a variety of different ways (according to type of proceedings) to family

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
Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
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
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
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
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
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
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
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'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
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
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll