‘The end of the summer holidays is a peak period for breakups. But now couples are looking for fast and amicable ways to avoid being mired in the blame game, will the law finally catch up?’
The Guardian, 23rd August 2016
‘R (on the application of Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor  UKSC 39.
Supreme Court bins the Government’s residence test for legal aid as ultra vires: just as the latest non-lawyer assumes the role of Lord Chancellor, the reforms made by the first non-lawyer to assume that role continue to fade away.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th July 2016
‘Three separate cases involving clinical negligence litigation against the defendant hospital had been proceeding for several years prior to 1 April 2013. Under new legislation coming into force on 1 April 2013, a claimant entering into a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) from that date would be unable to recover success fees and after the event (“ATE”) insurance premiums from the defendant if successful in the litigation. In each case the claim had initially been advanced with the benefit of legal aid, but in the month prior to 1 April 2013 the claimant’s solicitors, with the agreement of the claimant’s litigation friend, arranged for the legal aid certificate to be discharged and for the claim henceforth to be funded by a CFA to preserve the ability to recover the success fee and ATE premiums. In none of the cases was the litigation friend informed that the consequence would be the loss of the recognised 10% uplift on general damages. In each case the defendant challenged the successful claimant’s bill of costs, in so far as it sought to recover the success fee and the ATE premium, contending that the litigation friend’s decision was based on materially unreasonable advice (by reason of the omission to mention the 10% uplift) and that, since the burden was on the receiving party to establish that a cost was reasonably incurred and it was unknown what decision would have been made had proper advice been given, the doubt as to whether the additional costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred should be resolved in favour of the paying party. The costs judge in each case upheld the defendant’s challenge to those items, holding that the changed funding arrangements were not reasonable. Each claimant appealed, contending that the reasonableness of the decision to change funding had to be objectively assessed, so that the quality of any antecedent advice given to the claimants’ litigation friends was irrelevant.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
‘The High Court has overturned three high-profile costs rulings in which Irwin Mitchell lost the right to recover success fees and insurance premiums from defendants after failing to advise on the 10% uplift in general damages before switching clients from legal aid.’
Litigation Futures, 4th July 2016
‘Responding to the Legal Services Board’s latest report Evaluation: Changes in the legal services market 2006/07 – 2014/15 Chairman of the Bar, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said: “The Legal Services Board’s report on changes in the legal services market contains some mixed messages.
Bar Council, 4th July 2016
‘The Court of Appeal has granted permission for a judicial review of a Legal Aid Agency decision on capital contributions, urging “meaningful negotiations” between the parties to prevent further costs being incurred for the relatively small sums at stake.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 28th June 2016
‘The Ministry of Justice is undertaking national research as to the fitness for purpose of the legal aid domestic violence (DV) evidence requirements. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) research follows the earlier successful challenge by Rights of Women (R (Rights of Women) v Secretary of State for Justice  EWCA CIV91).’
Legal Voice, 29th June 2016