header-logo header-logo

20 June 2013 / David Burrows
Categories: Features , Family , Costs , Jackson , LASPO 2012
printer mail-detail

A heavy cost? (Pt 2)

David Burrows continues his review of how LASPO has influenced the funding landscape of family litigation

Costs allowances—or “funding” allowances—can provide a more fertile area for funding legal representation for family proceedings, than do legal services orders (LSOs) (considered in Pt 1 and only available for proceedings under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973)). The cross-over between the provisions in the statutes referred to below, the limitations of Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991), s 8 and the rigidity of MCA 1973, will provide satellite litigation in difficult statutory cross-currents, which reflect no credit on family law administrators. They will prove unhelpful to the impoverished parent, especially where she has to prepare her own application and to follow the points set out below. In what follows it will be assumed that the applicant for the order is female.

A LSO may be available to an applicant spouse (generally the wife) in circumstances tightly controlled by statute (MCA 1973, ss 22ZA

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll