header-logo header-logo

22 March 2018
Issue: 7786 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Calls for review of legal aid means test

Law Society claims current test excludes those below the poverty line

The Law Society has launched a campaign for a review of the financial eligibility test for civil legal aid, referencing Unison’s legal victory on tribunal fees.

New research commissioned by the Law Society and produced by Professor Donald Hirsch of Loughborough University reveals that people on incomes 10% to 30% below the poverty line are being excluded from legal aid. Consequently, many impoverished families are unable to obtain legal help to tackle issues such as eviction, housing disrepair and debt.

The Law Society points out that the Supreme Court held, in July 2017, that employment tribunal fees were unlawful because households on low incomes were expected to sacrifice ‘ordinary and reasonable expenditure for substantial periods of time’ to save for legal costs, R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51. It argues that the formula to determine eligibility for legal aid has the same effect as tribunal fees.

‘The financial eligibility test for civil legal aid is disqualifying people from receiving badly-needed legal advice and representation, even though they are already below the poverty line,’ said Law Society president Joe Egan.

‘The position has been getting progressively worse, because the means test thresholds have been frozen since 2010, while the cost of living, of course, has not.’

Egan called on the Ministry of Justice to review the means-testing regime and restore it to its 2010 real-terms level—prior to 2010, the means test levels were uprated every year in line with inflation—and to exempt those on means-tested benefits from capital assessment.

Capital assessment takes account of the equity in people’s homes and excludes those who have savings or assets worth more than £8,000, or in some cases, £3,000.

Professor Hirsch said: ‘The assumption that someone could sell their home to cover a legal bill is out of line with other forms of state means-testing, such as help with care costs.’

Issue: 7786 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll