Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
exceptional legal aid funding
Mike from CPAG has tweeted that they’ve been granted exceptional legal aid funding for a welfare benefits appeal ...
... anyone aware of the LAA having done so before?
I’ve been keeping an eye out and haven’t heard of any. Would be interest to know what type of case though
Mike isn’t about today but when he’s back in, I’ll ask if it’s possible for him to share any information about this case.
It’s for the following three judge panel appeal:
CE/783/2014
Secretary of State’s appeal against decision of the First-tier tribunal that the conversion Regs are ultra vires insofar as they provide for the termination of awards of incapacity benefit etc. otherwise than by way of supersession.
We relied on the comments in JC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2014] UKUT 352 (AAC), paragraph 63, on legal aid in 3 judge panel appeals.
Tom Royston is counsel. The public law project exceptional funding project is also very helpful and would no doubt be interested ot hear from anyone else who wants to or has applied for welfare benefits exceptional funding.
Excellent stuff, hopefully getting funding will set a precedent for all the higher level tribunal cases.
Anyone else with cases before a 3 panel Judges should get in touch with PLP.
Credit to Tom too, he has been advocating this funding gap for a long time.
Interesting blog here on exceptional case funding and pro bono from Paul Yates of Freshfields.
Pro bono and moral hazard: first, do no harm
It is worth noting here that while the MoJ predicted about 3,500 cases would be granted ECF each year, in the first year of operation the actual figure was 15.
With more and more claimants being prosecuted for overpayments in excess of £50,000 it is hard to see a reason why legal aid shouldn’t be granted for the civil case which would have been covered pre-LASPO. This, especially so, when so many overpayments are incorrect.
worth reading this as well:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/39.html
Sir James Munby even more exercised than he was in Q v Q (the case referred to in the linked article above)