Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

JUDICIAL REVIEW/FUNDING: R (T) v Legal Aid Agency [2013] EWHC 960 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:05 PM
Slug : judicial-review-funding-r-t-v-legal-aid-agency-2013-ewhc-960-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 3, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 102367

(Queen's Bench Division, Collins J, 26 April 2013)

The six children, all under 11 years of age and of Bangladeshi origin, were removed from their parents' care due to concerns of neglect and were placed in foster care. During proceedings permission was granted to instruct a psychologist and a specialist family service to report on the attachment between the parents and children as well as the parents' capacity to meet the needs of the children. The judge determined that the reports were necessary for a determination of whether the parents could care for the children and because the case was exceptional as involving allegations of neglect of six young children.

The judge approved fees of £90 per hour, to be paid in equal shares by all the parties, as being wholly reasonable, necessary and a proportionate disbursement on the public funding certificates of those parties who were publically funded.

In the event prior approval was eventually granted but at a level significantly less than the minimum fees estimated. Despite requests for the Legal Aid Authority to engage with proceedings and explain why the request was refused, a representative failed to provide an explanation for the decision.

The parties' brought judicial review proceedings. The Legal Aid Authority decision was quashed. While it was open to the defendant to determine a request was excessive and refuse prior authority it also had to be reasonable. In cases where children may be removed from their parents' care, Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 was engaged and the welfare of the child was paramount. Fairness dictated that where prior authority was refused sufficient reasons should be provided so any challenge could be brought speedily. 

 

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from