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
Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Big tech for small firms
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
NLJ this week: Presumption of capacity reaffirmed
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
NLJ this week: Justice delayed, justice denied
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
NLJ this week: The road ahead for employment rights
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: SLAPPed shut?
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll