header-logo header-logo

07 July 2011 / Charlotte Bradley
Issue: 7473 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Testing times

Charlotte Bradley reviews the “new” test for enforcing LSC cost orders

The first reported court decision since the change of test to be applied when enforcing a costs order against the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has now been made, a decade since the change in regulations, and, ironically, at a time when the government is pushing ahead its plans to slash legal aid.

In her judgment in LSC v F, A & V [2011] EWHC 899 (QB), [2011] All ER (D) 95 (Apr) Sharpe J refused the LSC’s appeal against the costs judge’s decision to allow the respondents to enforce their costs orders totalling £495,000. This claim against the LSC arose from unusual High Court family proceedings. 

The factual background

The respondents, F, A and V, were interveners in financial proceedings on divorce. F and V were sisters to the husband and A was the husband’s mother. All were Iranian. The wife (who had lived in the UK with the husband) asserted in the

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

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll