Turner v Plasplugs Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1996 |
| Date | 26 January 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Peter Gibson and Lord Justice Schiemann
Legal aid - costs - plaintiff not protected once certificate spent
Where a plaintiff had been granted legal aid limited to cover specific procedural steps, the certificate was spent once those steps had been accomplished.
Accordingly, where the certificate had not been discharged but the specific steps had been completed, he was not protected from liability for costs by section 17 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 as a legally assisted person in respect of any step taken outside the scope of the certificate.
The Court of Appeal so held, dismissing an appeal by the plaintiff, Jeffrey Turner, from Judge Ford, who, in the Patents County Court, on the plaintiff's filing notice of discontinuance of his action against the defendant, Plasplugs Ltd, had refused his application for an order that his liability for costs was limited as if section 17 of the 1988 Act applied.
The plaintiff was granted a legal aid certificate "to take proceedings against (the defendant) for breach of patent rights … limited to obtaining further evidence and thereafter counsel's opinion as to merits and quantum, to include settling of proceedings or a defence (and counterclaim) if counsel so advises."
Those steps were completed and thereafter the plaintiff, without further reference to the legal aid area committee for an extension of the certificate, issued proceedings. After considering the defence and counterclaim served by the defendant, counsel for the plaintiff felt unable to recommend extension of the certificate and the plaintiff sought to discontinue the action.
Mr Gilead Cooper for the plaintiff; Mr Gregory Chambers for the defendant.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the appeal raised an issue of considerable practical importance on the legal effect of a legal aid certificate granted to the present plaintiff: where the certificate was limited by reference not to particular claims or issues but to specific procedural steps or stages.
Limitations of that type had fallen for consideration in Dugon v WilliamsonELR([1964] Ch 59) and Boorman v GodfreyWLR ([1981] 1 WLR 1100).
The plaintiff had argued that he was at all times, in the terminology of the 1988 Act "a legally assisted person" as defined in section 2(11) with the result that he was entitled to the benefit of section 17.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyde v Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust
...has been completed. It was not suggested to us that the position is any different under the subsequent statutory scheme. 35 In Turner v Plasplugs Limited [1996] 2 All ER 939, legal aid was granted limited to obtaining further evidence and counsel's opinion, including settling proceedings. T......
-
Nicholas Courtauld Rayner v The Lord Chancellor
...the argument on behalf of Mr. Rayner is entirely novel and unprecedented, finds no support in the authorities and is inconsistent with Turner v. Plasplues [1996] 2 All E.R. 939 and Burridge (above). (h) The construction contended for on behalf of Mr. Rayner would also be "extremely impracti......
-
Rayner v The Lord Chancellor
...there but the sense is clear.) 24 I turn to the authorities on which Mr Mansfield relied. He referred us to S v S [1978] 1 WLR 11; Turner v Plasplugs Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 939; Burridge v Stafford [2000] 1 WLR 927; and Mohammadi v Shellpoint Trustees Ltd [2009] EWHC 1098 (Ch). However, he acc......
-
Burridge and Another v Stafford and Another. Khan v Ali
...and an assisted party in s.17. 28 What authority there is also points to the same conclusion. The most helpful case is that of Turner v Plastplugs Limited [1996] 2 AER 939. In that case this court held that where the steps for which a limited legal aid certificate had been granted had been ......