*/
The Court of Appeal has reversed the High Court’s ruling that the exceptional case funding (ECF) scheme was unlawful.
The Public Law Project will appeal the decision in Director of Legal Aid Casework and another v IS [2016] EWCA Civ 464, in which Lord Justice Laws ruled that the scheme ‘is not inherently or systematically unfair’.
Laws LJ said he recognised that the ‘complexity’ of the application form meant that claimants were ‘heavily dependent’ on lawyers to complete them, but said the evidence does not justify the conclusion that the scheme is ‘outside the range of lawful choices open to the Lord Chancellor’.
He noted ‘troubling’ difficulties with it and said: ‘No doubt the LAA [Legal Aid Agency] and the Lord Chancellor will be astute to look for improvements.’
Dissenting, Lord Justice Briggs found the scheme was ‘unfair’ and ‘unlawful’ due to ‘systematic and inherent’ defects.
In particular, he noted that the application form ‘is addressed to, and plainly designed only to be completed by, lawyers’ and that there is ‘inadequate’ guidance for litigants in person.
Briggs noted that the scheme provides no funding for the ‘substantial time and effort’ required for a lawyer to complete an application, and the 13% success rate makes it uneconomic for lawyers to do it.
‘There are therefore bound to be many potential applicants for ECF whose circumstances would qualify them to receive it, but who are disabled from doing so,’ he said.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned last year’s decision of the High Court that the scheme was unlawful because it was ‘far too complex’and set the bar too high for claimants to meet the merits test.
Welcoming the ruling, a Ministry of Justice spokesman said it will ‘consider urgently what steps to take in response to the court’s findings’.
The Court of Appeal has reversed the High Court’s ruling that the exceptional case funding (ECF) scheme was unlawful.
The Public Law Project will appeal the decision in Director of Legal Aid Casework and another v IS [2016] EWCA Civ 464, in which Lord Justice Laws ruled that the scheme ‘is not inherently or systematically unfair’.
Laws LJ said he recognised that the ‘complexity’ of the application form meant that claimants were ‘heavily dependent’ on lawyers to complete them, but said the evidence does not justify the conclusion that the scheme is ‘outside the range of lawful choices open to the Lord Chancellor’.
He noted ‘troubling’ difficulties with it and said: ‘No doubt the LAA [Legal Aid Agency] and the Lord Chancellor will be astute to look for improvements.’
Dissenting, Lord Justice Briggs found the scheme was ‘unfair’ and ‘unlawful’ due to ‘systematic and inherent’ defects.
In particular, he noted that the application form ‘is addressed to, and plainly designed only to be completed by, lawyers’ and that there is ‘inadequate’ guidance for litigants in person.
Briggs noted that the scheme provides no funding for the ‘substantial time and effort’ required for a lawyer to complete an application, and the 13% success rate makes it uneconomic for lawyers to do it.
‘There are therefore bound to be many potential applicants for ECF whose circumstances would qualify them to receive it, but who are disabled from doing so,’ he said.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned last year’s decision of the High Court that the scheme was unlawful because it was ‘far too complex’and set the bar too high for claimants to meet the merits test.
Welcoming the ruling, a Ministry of Justice spokesman said it will ‘consider urgently what steps to take in response to the court’s findings’.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
