- BY Colin Yeo
Court of Appeal finds that Exceptional Case Funding regime is lawful
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
The Court of Appeal has found that the Exceptional Case Funding regime for legal aid is lawful, overturning the decision of Collins J in the High Court ([2015] EWHC Admin 1965). The issues are distinct to R (on the application of Gudanaviciene & Ors) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1622 in that this was a generic challenge the new, amended scheme.
The leading judgment is that of Laws LJ, whose decision on the legal aid residence test was overturned rather peremptorily by the Supreme Court half way through the hearing. Briggs LJ dissents:
I have the misfortune to have reached the opposite conclusion to that of both my Lords. In my judgment the defects in the procedures for applying for ECF in the system in place at the time of the hearing before Collins J were systematic and inherent, to the extent that rendered the scheme inherently unfair, so that I would have been disposed to dismiss this appeal
Twitter seems unimpressed with the majority:
https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/733637318259658752
https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen/status/733658098305503232
https://twitter.com/windmill_tilter/status/733662686777597952
Source: The Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anor v IS [2016] EWCA Civ 464 (20 May 2016)
SHARE
