The letter [from the LSC] contains no reason why the full amount proposed is not approved. As the respondent had appeared at S`s hearing through his representative, Mr Michael Rimer, it was clear that he was aware of the President`s instructions. The opinion in this area from an authoritative source such as the President, in a reserved judgment after hearing the LSC in particular, establishes a public law obligation of the LSC which, as the President said, can be enforced by judicial review. Ms. Hewson attempted to point out the defendant`s real difficulties in dealing with the increasing number of applications for prior authorization. In Case S, it was found that following the new Financing Regulation introduced in October 2011 as part of the legal aid reform programme, the number of applications for prior admission of experts increased from 216 in November 2011 to 1855 in April 2012. I have been told that this increase has continued. Ms Hewson said 4 staff members from an office in Wales now have to process around 100 applications each week. I suspect that was a bit of an exaggeration, but what she meant was that the burden on those responsible for the decision was so heavy that they did not have time to start a discussion or give substantive reasons. Attempts to reduce costs in one way may have an effect that increases costs in another way.
If increased pressure is exerted as a result of the new rules introduced in October 2011, resources must be allocated to deal with these pressures. In R(H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority  1 WLR 127, paragraph 76, Dyson J. stated: At a hearing today, Justice Chamberlain said: „The authorities say that it is the court that has the competent authority. But the director [of the Legal Aid Agency] says: it is the agency and the director who do it. And lo and behold, the costs incurred by the public sector due to additional litigation and hearing time far outweigh the costs of obtaining expert advice. Unless the lawyers and lawyers work pro bono and the judge sits in his or her spare time. Another good example of the lack of collective thinking that weighs on public institutions. After taking 15 minutes to review his decision, Judge Chamberlain told the court that the agency had confirmed that criminal legal aid was available for commission proceedings arising from civil conduct in all jurisdictions and was not means-tested. If the proceedings take place before the High Court or a higher court, the interests of the administration of justice are automatically satisfied, so that legal aid is available without consideration of the case or the merits of the case. „In this case, legal aid is available under the law,” he said. Rimer said practitioners should be „notified” on how to make such requests for mutual legal assistance.
However, Justice Chamberlain stated: „Practitioners also read case law. If there is a difference between what the case law says and what the LAA says, they should follow the case law, right? Judges explain the law, not the LAA. A Supreme Court judge has tried to clear up confusion about who has the power to grant legal aid for commission proceedings in a case arising from the sale of Wimbledon tennis tickets. Justice Chamberlain decided not to issue an order of representation and informed the court that he would make a fuller judgment on the powers to do so in due course. He adjourned the matter for 21 days. He said: „I make it clear to Mr McKay that it is entirely in his best interest to ensure that he works with a legal representative as soon as possible. If it fails to do so, all the coercive powers of the court will be available. This includes the power to stop it if necessary. He stated that the starting point is for a person charged with an alleged violation of a Supreme Court order to receive legal aid under the law. However, there must still be a „determination” that the person is entitled to legal aid from the „competent authority” (under paragraph 16(1)(b) LASPO) before it can be obtained. He stated that LASPO had clarified that the director of the LAA or the court could be the competent authority. This is where Justice Blake erred, Justice Chamberlain said, when he assumed that if the matter were found criminal, any application for legal aid should be made to the court, not to the director. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA), not the court, is the authority empowered to rule on legal aid applications from people who appear before the Supreme Court for alleged breach of an order, Chamberlain said.
I. the principle that the costs of a single common expert are shared equally between the commissioning parties, in particular where this entails a disproportionate financial burden for the legal aid beneficiary or parties (this should include a thorough examination of the resources of any party claiming that it cannot afford the cost of education); or Chamberlain J. was informed by Michael Rimer on behalf of the Agency that if the court made an order, the Agency would replace it with its own representation. Noting comments about the clarity of Justice Chamberlain`s decision in October, Rimer said his client wanted him to be „impressed” that helpful tips on the application process could be found on the agency`s website. Chamberlain J. continued: „The understandable practical concern underlying Bunning was that at the time, when the court could not make the decision, there was no established procedure for obtaining legal aid for civil contempt proceedings. This concern has now been allayed. the AAL now has an established procedure. Justice Chamberlain asked the Legal Aid Agency to rule on whether the court has jurisdiction to issue a legal aid decision in favour of Luke McKay. The All England Lawn Tennis Club and the All England Lawn Tennis Ground say McKay is a ticket seller and have called for him to be jailed for contempt for allegedly violating an injunction issued in July. Please note that historical disciplinary findings imposed prior to 2002 are not included on our website. In addition, findings that do not include a period of suspension or exclusion will be removed from the website after two years.
Summary: In this case, the refusal of the Legal Aid Agency („LAA”) to allow the costs of obtaining expert evidence in nursing procedures was successfully challenged. The court allowed the four parties to the family law proceedings to jointly commission a well-known department („the MFS”) to conduct a multidisciplinary assessment of parents and children.