header-logo header-logo

26 May 2016
Issue: 7700 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Legal aid safety net is “lawful”

The exceptional case funding scheme, which helps those who fail to secure legal aid for civil matters, is lawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Lord Justice Laws overturned an earlier ruling by Mr Justice Collins that the scheme was complex, rigid and unlawful as it gave rise “to an unacceptable risk that an individual will not be able to obtain legal aid where failure to provide it would be a breach of that individual’s rights”.

The scheme was intended to be a safety net for claimants who fell through the gaps after the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) came into force. However, there has been a low take-up so far. The Ministry of Justice expected about 6,000 applications to be made each year but last year only 1,172 applications were made and 226 granted.

In The Director of Legal Aid Casework v IS [2016] EWCA Civ 464, Laws LJ acknowledged there had been “troubling” difficulties with the scheme but said: “The learning curve will continue.”

He added: “No doubt the Legal Aid Agency and the Lord Chancellor will be astute to look for improvements, and will do so on a continuing basis.”

Dissenting, Lord Justice Briggs said: “In my judgment the defects in the procedures for applying for [the scheme] in the system in place at the time of the hearing before Collins J were systematic and inherent, to the extent that rendered the scheme inherently unfair, so that I would have been disposed to dismiss this appeal.”

 
Issue: 7700 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll