Divisional Court rules JR Remuneration Regulations are unlawful

Today the 'no permission, no payment' judicial review regulations have been ruled unlawful by a Divisional Court (Beatson LJ and Ouseley J) in R (Ben Hoare Bell and Others) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWHC 523. The Court held that the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2014, which remove funding for all work done on JR permission applications where permission is refused, and make funding conditional on an LAA discretion where the permission stage is not reached, are unlawful because they are contrary to the purpose of the statutory scheme set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2013.

 

The claim was brought by four solicitors firms and an NGO, who argued that the Regulations would have a chilling effect on judicial review and, contrary to what Parliament intended, would prevent meritorious judicial review claims from being brought because of the financial risk faced by legal aid providers. The Claimants argued that in many cases permission applications will be risky and expensive for reasons outside of the control of JR claimants and their lawyers. The Court accepted this, finding that for some classes of case there was no rational connection between the effect of the Regulations and their stated purpose, holding that "the reach of regulation 5A extends well beyond those in which such a regulation could lawfully incentivise providers to a sharper focus on the merits test in the way described in the consultation papers". The Court also stated that it was a matter of "great concern" that there had been a 23% decline in applications for legal aid in JR claims since the Regulations came into force and that, in the light of the evidence of the chilling effect of the Regulations from "so many serious and experienced practitioners", a review by the government is necessary.

 

The Divisional Court has not reached a decision on relief in this case yet. We will update practitioners as soon as a decision on relief is made.

 

The Claimants in this case were Ben Hoare Bell Solicitors, Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors, Mackintosh Law, Public Law Solicitors and Shelter. They were represented by Martin Westgate QC and Martha Spurrier, instructed by Polly Brendon at the Public Law Project.

 

To veiw this judgment please see here:
 

« Back to listing

About cookies on our website

Following a revised EU directive on website cookies, each company based, or doing business, in the EU is required to notify users about the cookies used on their website.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site and to allow the use of specific functionality like social media page sharing. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended.

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)