header-logo header-logo

13 March 2015
Issue: 7644 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Legal aid

R (on the application of Ben Hoare Bell Solicitors and others) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWHC 523 (Admin), [2015] All ER (D) 19 (Mar)

The claimants challenged reg 5A(1) of the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/422), which introduced a “no permission, no fee” arrangement for legally aided applications for judicial review and provided no entitlement to payment where permission had neither been granted nor refused. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the scope of reg 5A extended beyond the circumstances which could be seen as rationally connected to the stated purpose given for its introduction. To that extent it was inconsistent with the purposes of the scheme in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

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