‘A judge has warned against unfairness to litigants in person caused by late service of documents.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th October 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The High Court has issued a warning to lawyers over dumping legal documents on litigants in person (LiPs) at the door of the court.’
Litigation Futures, 6th October 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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?”’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 26th September 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘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?’
Zenith PI Blog, 23rd September 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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.’
Litigation futures, 19th September 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 15th September 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘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?’
Cloisters, 1st August 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘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.’
Littleton Chambers, 18th July 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘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.’
Tanfield Chambers, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘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.’
Zenith PI, 29th June 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 10th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘People are avoiding regulation as immigration advisers by “purportedly acting as McKenzie Friends”, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) has warned.’
Legal Futures, 8th June 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
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
‘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.’
Legal Aid Handbook, 3rd June 2016
Source: www.legalaidhandbook.com
‘An appeal court ruling last week appears to have delivered a serious blow to solicitors seeking to offer ‘unbundled’ services without being held liable for matters beyond those in their client retainer.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 24th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Zane Gbangbola’s parents believe he died of hydrogen cyanide poisoning but as his inquest nears, they feel let down by the system.’
The Guardian, 16th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Marie Crawford, barrister, Becket Chambers considers the disconnection between theory and practice in making applications to adduce expert evidence.’
Family Law Week, 21st April 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Michael Allum, Solicitor with The International Family Law Group LLP, explains how the Central Family Court’s pilot scheme for electronic filing of documents will work.’
Family Law Week, 22nd April 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024