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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll