litigants in person – Page 9 – Current Awareness

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

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in barristers, civil procedure rules, disciplinary procedures, law reports, litigants in person by sally

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.’