header-logo header-logo

27 September 2012
Issue: 7531 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Coalition legal aid U-Turn

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has dropped its controversial proposals for a “Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme”.

Under the proposed scheme, the MoJ would have skimmed off 25 per cent from general damages awarded to legally aided clients and used it to supplement the legal aid fund.

Brain-damaged children and their families were one of the most controversial categories of claimant affected. Legal aid is due to be withdrawn from clinical negligence in April 2013, but an exception has been made for babies who suffer brain damage at birth or are injured in the first eight weeks of life, and for women who are injured during pregnancy or labour.

Consequently, brain-damaged babies and their families would have lost a quarter of their compensation. Clinical negligence lawyers campaigned against the proposals.

Peter Walsh, chief executive of Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA), said: “We hope that this more enlightened approach will lead to further changes to protect access to justice for victims of clinical negligence. It beggars belief that their predecessors were prepared to raid the damages of children brain-damaged by clinical negligence to subsidise their department.”

An MoJ spokesperson said: “Having carefully considered the views expressed in a recent stakeholder engagement exercise, Ministers have decided not to proceed with implementation of the proposed Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme in April 2013.”

Issue: 7531 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Personal injury
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