header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 July 2025 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 8125 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness , Legal aid focus , Local authority
printer mail-detail

Paying up! The expert fees cap

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
225832
If an expert charges more than the Legal Aid Agency’s fee cap, who covers the shortfall? Dr Chris Pamplin reports
  • The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) enforces strict caps on expert witness fees, only allowing exceptions in rare, complex cases. This often leads to unfair cost burdens on better-resourced parties like local authorities.
  • In JG v Legal Services Commission, the Court of Appeal ruled that the LAA’s refusal to fund a court-ordered expert report was unlawful, highlighting the need for case-by-case assessment rather than rigid application of funding rules.
  • The Family Court, led by Sir Andrew McFarlane, has clarified that local authorities should not routinely cover shortfalls in expert fees. Updated LAA guidance now outlines stricter criteria and a checklist for seeking prior authority, aiming to ensure fairness and transparency in funding decisions.

Severe cuts in public spending have restricted legal aid, led to a cap on how much experts can be paid from legal aid, and created inequalities. If an expert charges

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