The Act, which comes into force 1 April 2013, abolishes the Legal Services Commission which currently administers Legal Aid and transfers those powers to the Lord Chancellor. In reality those powers will be administered by the “Director of Legal Aid Casework” with the assistance of civil servants within an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The operation will be a massively scaled down version of its predecessor.

Across the board it is estimated that around 600,000 people per year will no longer have access to Legal Aid once the Act comes into force. It is our understanding that Legal Aid for Clinical Negligence will be limited to babies that have suffered brain damages within the first 8 weeks of life, or within 8 weeks from gestation week 37 if they have been born prematurely. A baby suffering brain damage from 8 weeks and 1 day will not automatically fall within the scope of the provisions and nor will any other type of clinical negligence claim. Legal Aid which has been granted prior to 1 April 2013 will be unaffected.

There are limited powers to apply for Legal Aid in exceptional cases but it is wholly unclear as to what the criteria is for such a qualification. What is clear is that the vast majority of those who would qualify for legal Aid on 31 March 2013 are unlikely to do so from the following day.

There are potentially other funding options, but anyone who believes they may have a claim which could be funded under the current Legal Aid regime is urged to contact us immediately at enquiries@bttj.com.

The post The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

At BTTJ, we understand that, regardless of the cost, family proceedings are sometimes inevitable. When it comes to moving on after a divorce or a separation, or issues regarding the care of children, we know that people sometimes cannot simply choose not to act because of the cost, but instead are likely to carry on, without the specialist advice they could use.

We have looked at our fees for family matters to see how we can help. We are not a family legal aid firm, and so we wanted to ensure that we could maintain the same high quality service that we have always provided to our privately paying clients, whilst extending this service to make it more accessible for people who would previously have qualified for legal aid.

To this end, we have introduced the following measures;

1. Free first consultation
2. Competitive fixed costs for divorce proceedings
3. Competitive fixed costs for representation at Court
4. Customised payment options, including instalments

After a divorce or separation, there will be various issues to resolve. Hopefully, an agreement can be reached, and we are experienced at helping to facilitate this. However, sometimes people simply cannot agree, and when that happens we are able to help with proceedings. We can help you reach the right outcome in relation to;

1. What happens to your house?
2. What happens to your savings, and your debts?
3. What happens to your pension?
4. And any other financial issues there may be. We understand every case is different.

When it comes to your children, the Court will only get involved when it has to. Again, we would hope to help you agree something with your former partner, however, when it is necessary to involve the Court, we can help you obtain Court orders for a wide variety of things, such as;

1. To determine with whom a child should live
2. To determine what contact, if any, the non-resident parent should have, and when and where that contact will take place
3. Any specific issues that needs to be dealt with, including; where a child should go to school, what religious upbringing a child should have, whether a child can leave the country etc.

The firm has over 20 years experience with helping people in these situations. Our current team comprises;

• David Hawley, a partner in the firm and an experienced family law practitioner.

• Melanie Timms, a trainee solicitor with experience of both children and divorce matters.

The post Family and Legal aid; What the changes mean for you. appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Practitioners, and their paying clients, will be familiar with the frustration felt at the, sometimes seemingly excessive, leniency Judges can show towards people acting for themselves. This can lead to increased costs for clients who choose to instruct solicitors, which can itself lead to problems where the reason the person is representing themselves is an economic one; where a party cannot afford to pay for a solicitor to represent them, they will often be unable to pay the other side’s legal costs if they lose.

However, practitioners and their clients should be comforted by the recent Court of Appeal finding in the case of Tinkler and Another v Elliott [2012] EWCA Civ 1289.

The case concerned a long running dispute between the Defendant and his former employer. The appeal centred on a decision made pursuant to CPR 39.3(5) to allow an application by the Defendant to set aside a judgment entered against him at a trial for which he did not attend.

The test the Court had to apply was three fold. To grant the application, it had to find that the applicant;

(a) acted promptly when he found that the court had exercised its power … to enter judgment or make an order against him;

(b) had a good reason for not attending the trial; and

(c) had a reasonable prospect of success at the trial.

Between the trial and the time the application was made, a period of 20 months had passed. The Claimant submitted that this period could in no way be characterised as prompt. The Defendant attributed this delay to two issues; his mental health and his ignorance of the fact that he could apply to have the judgment set aside.

The judge who heard the application determined that he was at a disadvantage due to his mental health and also due to his acting in person. She therefore found this was a ‘special case’ and she allowed the application despite the long delay.

On appeal, the Court found that whilst there may be facts and circumstances in relation to a litigant in person which may go to an assessment of promptness, they would only operate close to the margins. The Court stated that ‘an opponent of a litigant in person is entitled to assume finality without expecting excessive indulgence to be extended to the litigant in person’ and noted that ‘on any view, the fact that a litigant in person “did not really understand” or “did not appreciate” the procedural courses open to him for months does not entitle him to extra indulgence.’

The Judge went on to state that ‘even if one factors in (the Defendant’s) health problems, the evidence shows that between April and July 2010 he was active in this litigation. The fact that, if properly advised, he would or might have made a different application then cannot avail him now. That would be to take sensitivity to the difficulties faced by a litigant in person too far.’

Accordingly, the Court found that it was not open to the original Judge to find that the Defendant had acted promptly in making his application and his application must therefore be dismissed.

Whilst solicitors and their clients may take comfort from this judgment, it should also serve as a warning to would be litigants in person. According to paragraph 7 pf the judgment, ‘On 27 August 2009 a bankruptcy order was made against (the Defendant) following his failure to satisfy various orders for costs in this litigation.’ If the Courts are to be less lenient moving forward, litigants need to be aware of their costs liabilities; they may have not incurred their own legal fees, but that does not prevent them having to pay the other side’s costs if they lose.

The post ‘An opponent of a litigant in person is entitled to assume finality without expecting excessive indulgence top be extended to the litigant in person.’ appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.