header-logo header-logo

High Court ruling on unified contract

02 August 2007
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Fees
printer mail-detail

News

The new fixed fees for civil legal aid cases will be introduced as planned from October 2007, says the Legal Services Commission (LSC), despite a High Court ruling that the unified contract breaches European law.
The ruling follows the Law Society’s claim for judicial review, which challenged the LSC’s extensive right to amend the contract.
Mr Justice Beatson said changes to the contract should not be made if they would “alter the economic balance of the contract to the disadvantage of those who have entered into the unified contract”.

He said any proposed changes should be restricted to those envisaged by the initial white paper. The right to amend peer review processes and key performance indicators were also held to be incompatible with the obligation to set out technical requirements in the contract documentation.
The LSC insists the contractual provision enabling it to amend the unified contract in relation to fee levels and structures was lawful and it was only the requirements relating to amendments to the “technical specifications” of the contract which were found to breach EU procurement rules.

Carolyn Regan, LSC chief executive, says: “I am obviously pleasedthat the court has confirmed that it is lawful for the LSC to amend the unified contract to introduce the new civil legal aid fee schemes from October 2007.“
However, Legal Aid Practitioners Group director Richard Miller says: “At long last, we have seen the LSC held to account after trampling on the rights of the profession. We hope they will take from this the message that they are not above the law. Maybe we can now start to re-establish reasonable dialogue with a body that understands there are limits to its powers.
“Unfortunately, the initial signs are not good. The LSC’s own response to this judgment demonstrates no humility, no acknowledgement of their failure to comply with the law and a denial that the judgment has any implications for the introduction of fixed fees.”

Law Society president Andrew Holroyd says: “This judgment underlines the shortcomings of the LSC’s approach to the reforms of the legal aid system.”
Both the LSC and the Law Society are considering an appeal.
 

Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Fees
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
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
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
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
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'
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
back-to-top-scroll