Lecture by Sir Terence Etherton, MR: LawWorks Annual Pro Bono Awards lecture 2016 – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

‘It is a real pleasure to have been asked to give this year’s LawWorks Annual Pro Bono Awards lecture. My subject is Access to Justice. I am not interested in it as a slogan. I am interested in it because access to justice lies at the heart of any society that aspires to call itself just, civilised, and committed to democracy and the rule of law.’

Full speech

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 7th December 2016

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

I fought the law: meet the super-litigants – The Guardian

Posted December 5th, 2016 in litigants in person, news by sally

‘Some people who represent themselves in court spend months, even years, battling for justice. So why do they go on? Here are four who refused to give up.’

Full story

The Guardian, 4th December 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Court of Protection Update (Autumn 2016): Part 2 – Family Law Week

Posted November 3rd, 2016 in costs, Court of Protection, litigants in person, news, reporting restrictions by tracey

‘Sally Bradley and Julia Townend, barristers of 4 Paper Buildings, conclude their review of Court of Protection developments by considering recent judgments concerning reporting restriction orders; costs and civil restraint; and participation in proceedings.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 2nd November 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Jailed McKenzie friend facing £12,000 claim – Law Society Gazette

Posted October 24th, 2016 in litigants in person, McKenzie friends, news by michael

‘A jailed McKenzie friend could be released from prison for the day to represent himself in a claim lodged by an aggrieved former client.’

Full story

Law Society Gazette, 24th October 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Judge issues warning on late service and litigants in person – Local Government Lawyer

Posted October 14th, 2016 in case management, delay, litigants in person, news, practice directions, service by sally

‘A judge has warned against unfairness to litigants in person caused by late service of documents.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 12th October 2016

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

High Court warning to lawyers over fair treatment of litigants in person – Litigation Futures

Posted October 10th, 2016 in case management, delay, litigants in person, news, practice directions, service by sally

‘The High Court has issued a warning to lawyers over dumping legal documents on litigants in person (LiPs) at the door of the court.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 6th October 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

10 steps to help safeguard access to justice – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted September 26th, 2016 in civil justice, legal aid, litigants in person, news by sally

‘On Thursday 22 September 2016, Halsbury’s Law Exchange (HLE) hosted a panel discussion on the future of access to justice and litigants in person, specifically focusing on proposing solutions to this critical problem. In the lead up to the panel discussion, HLE produced a state of the nation paper that looks at the state of legal aid provision in the UK currently and asks the urgent question: “Can we safeguard access to justice?”’

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 26th September 2016

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Litigants in Person and Costs Budgeting: Campbell v Campbell [2016] EWHC 2237 (Ch) – Zenith PI Blog

Posted September 26th, 2016 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, litigants in person, news by sally

‘Can litigants in person ‘escape’ the rules relating to costs budgeting in all claims? To what extent does the costs management regime under CPR 3.12 to 3.18 apply to the costs of a litigant in person?’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 23rd September 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Court has power to apply costs management to litigant in person, chief master rules – Litigation Futures

Posted September 20th, 2016 in case management, civil procedure rules, costs, litigants in person, news by tracey

‘Courts can make a costs management order in relation to litigant in person (LiP) costs, and LiPs can recover costs where they obtain assistance from lawyers short of them having conduct of the case, the chief Chancery master has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation futures, 19th September 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

MPs call for end to abusive men using courts against families – The Guardian

‘The government must carry out a full review of family courts to stop them being used by violent men to perpetuate abuse against their partners and children, MPs have said.’

Full story

The Guardian, 15th September 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2016: Help for persons representing themselves (“litigants in person”)? – Cloisters

Posted August 25th, 2016 in Administrative Court, courts, judicial review, litigants in person, news by sally

‘In this blog I consider the Administrative Court’s Judicial Review Guide 2016 (“the Guide”). It is undoubtedly a massive help for solicitors, barristers and other legal advisers who are dealing with judicial review claims even on an infrequent basis. How much help can it be for a litigant in person?’

Full story

Cloisters, 1st August 2016

Source: www.cloisters.com

Bringing the Bar to the Pub: “Pop-up Justice” for the 21st Century? – Littleton Chambers

Posted July 26th, 2016 in courts, litigants in person, news by sally

‘On 30 June 2016, The Times reported on a speech given by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court, to a conference organised by Solicitors for the Elderly. It touched on the possibility of holding court hearings in public places other than court buildings. On the same day, The Daily Mail reported that “[m]akeshift courts could be held in buildings such as pubs or town halls.” Now, many a practitioner (not least myself) has calculated the swiftest route from a judicial tongue-lashing to some alcoholic relief from sanction, but can they really be proposing pub hearings (legal history buffs might like to note that a Court of Piepowders, described by Sir William Blackstone as “the lowest, and at the same time the most expeditious, court of justice known to the law of England”, sat at the Stag and Hounds in Bristol until 1870)? Probably not.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 18th July 2016

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

No Nisi, No Dice – Tanfield Chambers

Posted July 12th, 2016 in appeals, costs, divorce, litigants in person, news by sally

‘In K v K (Financial Remedy Final Order prior to Decree Nisi) 2016 EWFC 23, Cobb J remitted a case for rehearing on the basis that the trial judge had made an order prior to the grant of decree nisi of divorce. The case provides a salutary warning for lawyers about the limits of the Family Court’s powers to correct what was an innocent and – at first glance – merely procedural mistake.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 22nd June 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Bar Council responds to latest LSB report on legal services market – Bar Council

‘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.

Full press release

Bar Council, 4th July 2016

Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk

To recuse or not? – Ghadami v Bloomfield and others [2016] EWHC 1448(ch) – Zenith PI

‘Norris J has recently had to deal with an interesting case where he faced an application that he should recuse himself from a case. It also highlighted the negative impact a litigant in person can have on a case and administration of the Courts.’

Full story

Zenith PI, 29th June 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Defendant who represented himself gets new case review hope – The Guardian

‘A dyslexic defendant who represented himself in a crown court trial – after being handed 790 hours of CCTV footage to review in prison to support his alibi – is challenging his conviction for attempted murder.’

Full story

The Guardian, 10th June 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Immigration advisers using McKenzie Friend status “to dodge regulation” – Legal Futures

‘People are avoiding regulation as immigration advisers by “purportedly acting as McKenzie Friends”, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) has warned.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 8th June 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Regina (Bar Standards Board) v Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court – WLR Daily

Regina (Bar Standards Board) v Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court [2016] EWCA Civ 478

‘The Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court, having determined disciplinary proceedings in favour of a non-practising barrister who had represented herself at the hearing, ordered the Bar Standards Board to pay her costs and appointed an assessor to determine the amount. Treating the Civil Procedure Rules as persuasive, the assessor took the view that by reason of her status as a barrister and the fact that she had conducted the proceedings herself, the barrister had established financial loss sufficient to allow recovery of two thirds of the rate which a solicitor would have charged had CPR r 48.6 applied. He therefore assessed her costs in the sum of £27,521·50 for 166 hours of work, a figure not in dispute. The award included the costs of her time at the rate of £120 per hour. The board claimed judicial review of that decision, contending that the barrister was entitled to no more than that to which a litigant in person would have been entitled, and that the expenditure of her time and skill did not amount to financial loss within the meaning of CPR r 48.6(4)(a). The Divisional Court, allowing the claim in part, held that the correct basis of assessing costs was in accordance with regulation 31 of the board’s Disciplinary Tribunals Regulations 2009 as amended, namely, to award such costs as the tribunal thought fit, the Civil Procedure Rules being neither applicable nor persuasive, and the financial loss of a barrister acting in person defending disciplinary proceedings included the expenditure of the barrister’s own professional skill. The court therefore held that the barrister was entitled to the costs represented by her expenditure of professional skill in successfully defending the charges brought against her. The court concluded that an hourly rate of £120 was too high since she had not been practising at the time, and accordingly substituted an award of costs calculated at £60 per hour. The court further ordered the barrister, as an interested party in the proceedings,to pay 60% of the board’s costs of the judicial review proceedings.’

WLR Daily, 11th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (S) v Director of Legal Aid Casework – WLR Daily

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in law reports, legal aid, litigants in person by sally

Regina (S) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2016] EWCA Civ 464

‘The claimant, a Nigerian national who lacked capacity to engage in litigation, applied for exceptional case funding pursuant to section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to assist him in making representations to the Home Office to recognise his position in the United Kingdom. The Director of Legal Aid Casework refused his application but the claimant was subsequently granted funding after he successfully claimed judicial review of the refusal on the ground that the guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor and applied by the Director was unlawful. Notwithstanding that grant, the claimant’s remaining challenge to the manner in which the exceptional case funding scheme was operated, which raised important issues of wider application, proceeded effectively as a test case. The claimant’s case was that the operation of the scheme created an unacceptable risk that individuals would be unable to make an effective application under the scheme and would therefore suffer a breach of their Convention rights or European Union rights. The judge allowed the claim, holding that (i) the manner in which the exceptional case funding scheme was operated meant that in practice the safety net intended to be provided by section 10 to enable individuals who would not otherwise qualify for legal aid funding to present their cases effectively without obvious unfairness was not being provided and (ii) the requirement in regulations 5 and 43 of the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 that cases had to demonstrate an even or better than even prospect of success was unreasonable and the method of rating prospects of success was itself unsatisfactory. Accordingly he granted declarations that the exceptional case funding scheme, the 2013 Regulations and the guidance were unlawful.’

WLR Daily, 20th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Court of Appeal says exceptional funding regime is lawful – Legal Aid Handbook

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in legal aid, litigants in person, news by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has given judgment in the case of Director of Legal Aid Casework and another v IS [2016] EWCA Civ 464, the Director’s appeal against the judgment of Collins J in the High Court that the exceptional funding regime was inherently unlawful.’

Full story

Legal Aid Handbook, 3rd June 2016

Source: www.legalaidhandbook.com