header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 May 2013 / Cara Nuttall
Issue: 7560 / Categories: Opinion , Expert Witness , Family
printer mail-detail

The high price of justice

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
istock_000015956095medium_0

The inability to afford expert evidence will impact complex family cases warns Cara Nuttall
 

One month into the legal aid cuts implemented by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, concerns about their negative impact on the effective administration of justice in family proceedings continue. As legal representation becomes an unaffordable luxury for many, it appears that expert evidence does too.

The decision last month in R (on the application of JG (a child) (by her children’s guardian)) v Legal Services Commission [2013] EWHC 804 (Admin) confirmed, even when expert evidence has been deemed necessary by the court, it is unlikely to be obtained. The only way to obtain funding is to rely on the public funding certificate of the child involved. As a result, becoming increasingly unclear how family courts are going to acquire evidence of sufficient quality to allow long-term welfare decisions to be made in complex cases.

The case of JG concerned an application for judicial review on behalf of the child, who

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll