header-logo header-logo

A heavy cost? (Pt 2)

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

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll