header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 May 2015 / David Burrows
Issue: 7654 / Categories: Features , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

​Taking the hit

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7654_burrows

Does lack of clarity in the legal aid scheme prevent access to justice, asks David Burrows

A new government, a new Justice Secretary: there is no likelihood of improvement to the legal aid scheme. But is it now time to reflect on the lack of clarity—for lawyer and lay-person alike—of the present scheme? In particular it is surely time to ask whether the present process for application for legal aid—for an applicant merely to be able to apply to the court or defend a claim—is fair given the complexity of the present statutory scheme? The question of the obscurity of the scheme for application for legal aid can be tested against two recent cases on applications for domestic violence and for county court (and thus family court) committal proceedings.

In Brown v London Borough of Haringey [2015] EWCA Civ 483, [2015] All ER (D) 126 (May) the Court of Appeal concluded, after a lengthy analysis of complex legal aid statutory and regulatory provisions, that applications for legal aid for committal proceedings in civil

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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll