header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 January 2012
Issue: 7498 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Legal aid—Payment on account—Recoupment by Legal Services Commission

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Legal Services Commission v Loomba; Legal Services Commission v Ulasi; Legal Services Commission v Carter and others [2012] EWHC 29 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 58 (Jan)

 

Queen’s Bench Division, Cranston J, 17 Jan 2012

The Legal Services Commission has the power to nil assess and thereby recoup payments on account pursuant to the incidental power in s 4(1)(b) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (LAA 1988).  

Jeremy Morgan QC and Rachel Sleeman (instructed by CKFT Solicitors) for the Commission. Peter Susman QC (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the first defendant, (instructed by Ngozi Blessing Ulasi) for the second defendant and (instructed by Howell-Jones). for the third defendant.

Payment on account in relation to legal aid work was introduced to assist cash flow for legal aid lawyers. There was a recognition that, whereas private client work could be charged on a pay-as-you-go basis, legal aid payment might not be recoverable until some considerable time after a certificate had been issued, often long after the case had been concluded. Payment on account was initially confined
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
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll