Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

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