header-logo header-logo

20 November 2019
Issue: 7865 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Clarity on legal aid in civil contempt proceedings

Litigants in person should seek legal aid from the Legal Aid Agency not the High Court for civil contempt proceedings, Mr Justice Chamberlain has said in a case about an alleged ticket tout

Delivering judgment in The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Ltd v McKay (No 2) [2019] EWHC 3065 (QB), Chamberlain J highlighted a lack of clarity regarding how an individual facing an application in the High Court to commit them to prison for contempt should go about claiming legal aid. ‘There is no real doubt that such individuals are entitled to legal aid,’ he said, ‘the question is who has power to grant it’.

Solicitor advocate and NLJ columnist David Burrows said: ‘In proceedings in which the All England Lawn Tennis Club were seeking to commit an alleged ticket tout for failure to comply with an order against him, Chamberlain J considered who should grant any legal aid to him.

‘He said an earlier decision (King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning [2013] EWHC 3390 (QB)) was wrong and that it was for the Legal Aid Agency’s specialist committal department to grant legal aid within the criminal legal aid scheme (though the committal was within civil proceedings).’

Chamberlain J concluded that his decision should have no practical effect on the availability of legal aid because the Legal Aid Agency has an established procedure for determining applications expeditiously in cases of this sort. He encouraged litigants and providers of legal services to use this procedure rather than apply to the High Court for representation orders. For Court of Appeal cases, however, applications should be made to the court.

Issue: 7865 / Categories: Legal News
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
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll