LAA presses ahead with bringing court-assessed bills in-house
The controversial transfer of all assessments of court-assessed bills from HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) will happen on 17 August, the agency announced this week.
The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) will reject any claims submitted via CE File on or after 17 August and refund the court fee paid in the usual way.
The move has attracted strong criticism from the legal profession, with the ACL’s Legal Aid Group highlighting a range of concerns it has about the change.
The LAA said: “In recent weeks, many providers have gone without payment for cases because of court closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Bringing this work in-house will remove the need for claims to go before the courts. This will mean faster payments in both the long and short-term for your work.”
Any claims submitted to the court before 17 August may be returned for submission to the LAA if the HMCTS assessment process has not started. Claims submitted to SCCO will be processed by the court with an aim to complete it within four weeks of the date of receipt.
The LAA said it was already set up to receive these claims and has been processing them since 1 June.
Judge was wrong not to make costs order
A judge was wrong not to order costs against HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) after dismissing a winding-up petition against a company, the High Court has ruled.
According to a Lawtel report of Mr Justice Birss’s decision in Helmbridge Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners last week, the fact that the company had not asked for a costs order when the petition was dismissed was not irrelevant, but it did not mean that it was precluded from appealing.
There was nothing to indicate that the normal costs order in favour of the successful party should not apply.
The report said: “In principle, a decision had been made about costs, namely that there was an order for no order as to costs. The question was whether it was the right decision. Despite the width of the costs discretion, it had not been the right order for the court to have made without at least hearing submissions from the appellant at the dismissal hearing.
“The appellant had raised sufficient reasons why the order should have been made in its favour. The appeal was allowed and HMRC was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs.”
Call for Honorary QC nominations
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is inviting nominations for the award of Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa, or Honorary QC.
It recognises qualified lawyers (including Costs Lawyers) and legal academics who have made a major contribution to, and impact on, the law of England and Wales and how it is advanced, outside the courtroom; in other words, non-advocacy work.
The MoJ said the criterion “can be interpreted broadly, either as a major contribution to the shape of the law (for example, by influencing case law), or to how it is advanced (for example, by positively impacting the shape of the profession). What is most important is that nominations clearly evidence the significant, positive impact an individual’s efforts have had”.
The MoJ said: “We are keen to recognise the diversity within the profession, with awards that reflect the range of different legal careers that make up the profession.” It is not a long-service award – “it is the scale of impact that is important”.
Nomination forms must be sent by Tuesday 11 August. More details can be found here.