header-logo header-logo

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

High Court ruling on unified contract

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll