Legal Aid - 1995

These cases are extracted from a very large database. The entries on that database are now being published individually to the main swarb.co.uk website in a much improved form. As cases are published here, the entry here will be replaced by a link to the same case in that improved form on swarb.co.uk. In addition the swarb.co.uk site includes very substantial numbers of cases after 2000. Please take the time to look.  

This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 06 June 2013. These case are being transferred one by one to the main swarb.co.uk site which presents them better, with links to full text where we have it, and much improved cross referencing.

Bradstock Trustee Services Ltd -v- Nabarro Nathanson [1995] 1 WLR 1405
1995 ChD Baker QC J	Litigation Practice, Legal Aid	Casemap
	The plaintiffs were trustees of an occupational pension scheme. It began professional negligence proceedings to recover an expected surplus paid to the employer by the solicitors whose advice had been acted on. The anticipated costs were disproportionate, so the case was assigned with the consent of the court to beneficiaries who sued under legal aid. They then applied to the court to be substituted as plaintiffs. Held. The application failed. The trustees had not failed in the performance of their duty to protect the trust estate by declining to continue the action and the applicants had no cause of action against the solicitors since they had no legal or equitable property in the subject-matter of the action. They were simply beneficiaries of any property recovered by the trustees. The trust estate would probably be liable for costs if the action failed and there was nothing in the rules of court to justify handing over the conduct of the action against the third party and accordingly he had no jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

McTear -v- Scottish Legal Aid Board 1995 SCLR 611
1995	Legal Aid	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court refused the pursuer's claim for judicial review of the board's refusal of legal aid to pursue a claim for negligence against tobacco manufacturers following the death of her husband.
	Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 1491)

Arbitrators' Institute of New Zealand Inc -v- Legal Services Board; 1995

Practice Direction (Crown Court: Counsel)
25 Jan 1995 CACD	Legal Aid
	Practice Direction on power of Judge to order legal aid for more than one counsel.
	Legal Aid in Criminal and Care proceedings (General)(Amendment No 2) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 31)

Benham -v- United Kingdom 19380/92; [1996] ECHR 22; [1996] 22 EHRR 293;; [1996] ECHR 22
8 Feb 1995 ECHR	Legal Aid, Human Rights, Rating, Magistrates
	Legal Aid was wrongfully refused where a tax or fine defaulter was liable to imprisonment, and the lack of a proper means enquiry, made imprisonment of poll tax defaulter unlawful. A poll tax defaulter had been wrongly committed to prison by magistrates. The question was whether or not they had acted in excess of jurisdiction. If they had not, the detention was lawful under Article 5 (1) (b). English law distinguished between acts of a Magistrates court which were within its jurisdiction and those which were in excess of jurisdiction. The former were valid and effective unless or until they were overturned by a superior court, whereas the latter were null and void from the outset. The test for deciding whether or not magistrates acted within their jurisdiction was that laid down by the House of Lords in McC v Mullan. The third limb of that test was relevant here, namely that magistrates exceeded their jurisdiction when they made an order which had no foundation in law because of a failure to observe a statutory condition precedent." The proceedings for non-payment of the community charge were criminal: ".... the law concerning liability to pay the community charge and the procedure upon non-payment was of general application to all citizens, and that the proceedings in question were brought by a public authority under statutory powers of enforcement. In addition, the proceedings had some punitive elements. For example, the magistrates could only exercise their power of committal to prison on a finding of wilful refusal to pay or of culpable neglect. Finally, it is to be recalled that the applicant faced a relatively severe maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment, and was in fact ordered to be detained for 30 days. Having regard to these factors, the Court concludes that B was 'charged with a criminal offence' for the purposes of Article 6(1) and (3). Accordingly, these two paragraphs of Article 6 are applicable."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 6.3
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Redbridge Justices Ex Parte Guppy
23 Feb 1995 QBD	Legal Aid
	Compensation orders made in enforcement proceedings are criminal. They should attract legal aid.
	Legal Aid Act 1988 19-5

Stein -v- Blake; HL 18-May-1995

Regina -v- Highbury Corner Magistrates Court Ex Parte Sonn & Co (A Firm)
23 May 1995 QBD	Legal Aid
	A Legal Aid order can be made after a final hearing allowing payment for earlier work.

Connelly -v- RTZ Corporation Plc
29 Sep 1995 CA	Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction, Legal Aid	Casemap 1 Citers
	Availability of legal aid to a party is not a relevant consideration to rules of forum non conveniens.

Norglen Ltd (In Liquidation) -v- Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Etc
6 Dec 1995 CA Sir Thomas Bingham M.R., Hobhouse and Aldous L.JJ	Legal Aid	1 Citers
	An assignment of a cause of action in order to be eligible to apply for Legal Aid is not against public policy. An assignment of a cause of action was not invalid solely on the ground that its purpose was to enable the action to be prosecuted on terms that the company would benefit from success. There was no jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs against Mr and Mrs Rodgers (who had taken the assignment from Norglen Ltd) and it would not in the circumstances be right to make an order against Norglen, which was dropping out of the action.

Willis -v- Redbridge Health Authority [1996] 1 WLR 1228
22 Dec 1995 CA Beldam LJ	Costs, Legal Aid	1 Citers
	An unsuccessful Defendant cannot be ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis to a legally aided Plaintiff, even if it might otherwise be justified. The normal basis is for standard costs.