header-logo header-logo

29 April 2010 / George Gordon
Issue: 7415 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Accessing justice

Pro bono costs orders: levelling the playing field? By George Gordon

Section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 came into force on 1 October 2008 and permitted a departure from the indemnity principle of costs for a party whose legal representation was provided pro bono (as long as its opponent was paying for its representation).

It was widely hoped that three principal benefits would be derived from the change in the law:
(i) that the threat of costs would be a weapon in the armoury of the pro bono litigant, thereby establishing equality of arms;
(ii) that all income from successful Pro Bono Costs Orders could be ploughed back into facilitating further pro bono activities;
(iii) that the Access to Justice Foundation, which controls the distribution of all money generated from pro bono costs orders, could develop a nationwide strategic policy on how best to nurture pro bono activities on the basis of need.

The availability of pro bono costs orders has been enshrined in Pt 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules for 18 months, and yet 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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll