header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 May 2007
Issue: 7273 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Costs
printer mail-detail

Row brews over very high cost cases

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The Law Society is threatening legal action against the Legal Services Commission (LSC) over its plans to introduce tendering for very high cost cases (VHCCs).

Last week, Bindman & Partners, acting for the Law Society, sent a pre-action protocol for judicial review to the LSC about its decision to establish a panel of teams contracted to conduct VHCCs.

The LSC has since extended its consultation period regarding changes to the contract by two weeks to 25 May. The application process, due to begin next week when application packs were to be available on the LSC website, will now begin on 5 June and close on 27 July.

Bindmans is poised to prepare a judicial review claim and seek interim relief and abridgment of time if the LSC doesn’t respond by the end of this week.
The society wants the LSC to withdraw the scheme, carry out extra research, conduct a race equality impact assessment and carry out a “meaningful and informed” consultation

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
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll