Legal Aid in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B
    • House of Lords
    • 22 June 1995

    It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests. It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests. Legal professional privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case. Legal professional privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case.

  • Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 April 1993

    9) The judge should be alert to the possibility that an application against a non-party is motivated by resentment of an inability to obtain an effective order for costs against a legally-aided litigant.

  • Buttes Gas and Oil Company v Hammer; Buttes Gas and Oil Company v Hammer (No. 3)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 June 1980

    In all such cases I think the courts should - for the purposes of discovery - treat all the persons interested as if they were partners in a single firm or departments in a single company, Each can avail himself of the privilege in aid of litigation. Each can collect information for the use of his or the other's legal adviser.

  • Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd
    • Privy Council
    • 21 July 2004

    ) Where, however, the non-party not merely funds the proceedings but substantially also controls or at any rate is to benefit from them, justice will ordinarily require that, if the proceedings fail, he will pay the successful party's costs. The non-party in these cases is not so much facilitating access to justice by the party funded as himself gaining access to justice for his own purposes.

  • Barton v Wright Hassall LLP
    • Supreme Court
    • 21 February 2018

    Their lack of representation will often justify making allowances in making case management decisions and in conducting hearings. But it will not usually justify applying to litigants in person a lower standard of compliance with rules or orders of the court. The overriding objective requires the courts so far as practicable to enforce compliance with the rules: CPR rule 1.1(1)(f). The rules do not in any relevant respect distinguish between represented and unrepresented parties.

  • Hanlon v The Law Society
    • House of Lords
    • 01 May 1980

    In property adjustment proceedings, in my view, it is only property the ownership or transfer of which has been in issue which has been "recovered or preserved" so as to be the subject of a legal aid charge. What has been in issue is to be collected as a matter of fact from pleadings, evidence, judgment and/or order. I can see no reason for extending the words to items of property the ownership or possession of which has never been questioned.

  • Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Watson v Watson (Wasted Costs Orders)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 January 1994

    It is incumbent on courts to which applications for wasted costs orders are made to bear prominently in mind the peculiar vulnerability of legal representatives acting for assisted persons, to which Balcombe LJ adverted in Symphony Group and which recent experience abundantly confirms. It would subvert the benevolent purposes of this legislation if such representatives were subject to any unusual personal risk.

See all results
Legislation
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Forms
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT