Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

LEGAL AID/NEGLIGENCE: Truex v Kitchin [2007] EWCA Civ 618

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : truex-v-kitchin-2007-ewca-civ-618
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 19, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88873

(Court of Appeal; Waller and Lawrence Collins LJJ; 4 July 2007)

The respondent had instructed the appellant solicitors in divorce proceedings and a leave to remove application. The matter proceeded with the respondent paying the solicitors on a private basis. A payment on account of £9,000 was made. Between 18 February 2003 and 7 April 2003 £21,000 worth of work was carried out. On or about 7 April 2003 the respondent transferred to another firm of solicitors and was granted public funding. The balance of £12,000 remained outstanding.

The question was whether the appellant firm of solicitors should have advised the respondent that she might be eligible for legal aid earlier than they did. In the original hearing of the claim by the solicitors against the respondent for outstanding fees the judge held that the solicitors had been negligent in failing to advise the respondent that she might be eligible for public funding, and dismissed their claim, giving judgment for the respondent's counter-claim for the money she had paid on account, save a small amount for an initial meeting. The solicitors appealed.

The appeal would be dismissed. A solicitor must be bound at the outset to consider the question whether a client might be eligible for legal aid. On the facts which were before the solicitors when they took initial instructions and arising out of a telephone conversation shortly afterwards, any reasonable solicitor would have formed the view that the respondent might be eligible for public funding. There had been no material change in circumstances between the date the respondent instructed the appellant solicitors and the date she was granted public funding by the second firm of solicitors. If the financial position of the respondent had been properly considered in the context of whether she might be eligible for public funding she would have been advised to go to a different firm at a very early stage and this she would have done.

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