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 ancillary relief proceedings that the interveners’ assets (comprising a number

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