header-logo header-logo

Legal Aid Agency may have to bear cost of expert fees

28 May 2014
Issue: 7608 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Legal Aid Agency—formally known as the Legal Service Commission (LSC) —was wrong to refuse to pay the full cost of an expert witness report ordered for a child by the family court. 

The Court of Appeal held the LSC should not have refused to pay more than one-third of the expert’s fees, in JG v The Lord Chancellor [2014] All ER (D) 192 (May), [2014] EWCA Civ 656. 

The Lord Chancellor, for the LSC, argued that parents who are not legally aided should pay their share of the expert’s fee. The Law Society, intervening, countered that the expert was instructed by the child alone. 

According to the Law Society, the decision means the Legal Aid Agency will in future need to look at the facts of a specific case to decide whether it should pay the fees in full, and that where unrepresented parents cannot afford to commission expert evidence it may be appropriate for the full costs to be borne by the child through their legal aid certificate.

Geraldine Morris, head of LexisPSL Family, says: “Family justice resources are under huge pressure at the moment. 

“The bringing into effect of the Child Arrangements Programme on 22 April was with the primary aim of reducing damaging delay in private children proceedings. The decision by the LSC in this case caused a lengthy period of delay, and the Court of Appeal’s decision will therefore be welcomed by practitioners and parties alike in the hope that the court’s guidance will assist in similar future cases.”

Issue: 7608 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll