header-logo header-logo

17 July 2014
Issue: 7615 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

“Unlawful” residency test

Government proposals to introduce a one-year residency test for eligibility for civil legal aid have been ruled unlawful by the High Court.

The court unanimously held the test was ultra vires, unlawful and unjustifiably discriminatory, in R (on the application of PLP) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 2365 (Admin).

Delivering his judgment, Lord Justice Moses said regulations made under an Act of Parliament must be consistent with the aims of that Act, which the residence test would not be. Instead, the test was “entirely, focused on reducing the cost of legal aid”.

Jo Hickman, head of casework at Public Law Project, which brought the judicial review, says the judgment “provides a timely illustration of the importance of judicial review as a check on unlawful executive action”.

Issue: 7615 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

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
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
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’
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll