Legal aid firm told to repay £800,000

Topics: Legal aid and access to justice,Courts business

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (7)
  • Save

Related images

  • High Court

A legal aid firm has been ordered to repay nearly £800,000 received on account plus interest following a High Court ruling. 

East London firm Charles Ete and Co had contracts with the former Legal Services Commission (LSC) to carry out civil and criminal legal aid work. The lord chancellor’s claim to recoup payments on account (POA) relates to work carried out under a civil contract in relation to family proceedings.


The judgment, The Lord Chancellor v Charles Ete and Co and Charles Ete and Ratookumar Manorbhai Patel, states that from 2009, the LSC became ‘increasingly concerned’ by the large number of certificated civil cases in which the firm had not submitted final bills so that a reconciliation could be carried out between the POAs and a final assessment.   

Bills for a ‘substantial’ number of cases had been promised by the firm ‘on a number of occasions and still not produced’.

The LSC was also concerned ‘about the large amount of POAs compared to the firm’s work in progress as well as its accounting procedures’.

The firm’s contract for family work was terminated in January 2012. Its crime contract was terminated in July 2012.

Issuing a claim in the High Court in July 2013, the lord chancellor sought to recover £795,183.69 plus interest down to the date of the judgment at the rate of 4% a year. The firm’s response stated that it carried out work exceeding the value of the POAs and that it was owed £455,480.30 plus interest.

In a counterclaim, the firm alleged that the civil contract had been wrongfully terminated ‘because of the inadequate length of the notice period given, and a breach of natural justice involved in the composition of the [Contract Review Body]’.

In relation to the termination of the crime contract, the firm alleged there had been a breach of natural justice through the inappropriate composition of the CRB and a failure on the part of the LSC to consider taking corrective action instead of terminating the crime contract.

Ruling in favour of the lord chancellor and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaims, Mr Justice Holgate said the firm ‘repeatedly failed to have final bills prepared for nearly all of the cases in which it had said that bills would be submitted during the 2009-2012 period'.

Billing delays in the present case ‘were very substantial indeed’, Holgate said.

Holgate said firm partner Charles Ete’s explanations for the billing delays, whether in correspondence or in evidence, ‘lack any credibility’.

‘He sought to lay the blame for billing at the door of other parties, whether the LSC, or costs draftsmen, or lawyers who had removed files, so as to claim that the firm had not been unwilling to submit final bills on concluded cases’.

Holgate rejected Ete’s ‘repeated’ claims that the firm had been unable, rather than unwilling, to have final bills prepared because of financial constraints.

On the claim that the civil contract had been wrongfully terminated, Holgate said the breaches of the contractual terms had been ‘both flagrant and persistent and fully justified’ the contract’s termination.

On the claim that the crime contract was wrongfully terminated, he rejected Ete’s assertion ‘that the LSC had been obliged to require corrective actions to be taken rather than terminate the contract’.

He also rejected the claim that there had been a breach of natural justice.

Holgate refused Ete’s application for permission to appeal ‘the whole judgment costs and interest’ on the basis ‘that it does not have any real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard’.

However, Ete told the Gazette that he will lodge an application at the Court of Appeal.

Readers' comments (7)

  • The Lord Chancellor v Charles Ete and Co & Ors [2016] EWHC 275 (QB) (18 February 2016)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • More news reflecting badly on the profession.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • On the other hand, if they are correct in their assertion that there remains a balance of some £450,000 plus owed to them in excess of the existing POAs, it seems unreasonable not to at least look at that assertion rather than simply deprive them of those costs.

    The court could have readily adjourned the proceedings on terms that the outstanding costs be assessed within a stipulated time frame. Where would have been the harm in that?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No. If they are correct in their claim to be owed £450,00 then they should have submitted claims to the LAB, as required. I'm afraid that claiming for payment, with all the joy involved in that tedious process, is part and parcel of the deal. No ifs or buts.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Last year I arranged to repay just under £24,000 to LAA in respect of Payments on Account and it was surprising how difficult that was. These arose where I had submitted final bills but for some reason LAA had not recouped what was outstanding. As I am thinking of winding down soon I wanted to put my house in order and asked to repay the money. I was given the LAA's bank details but when I sent the money to them it all went into a suspense account and it was extremely difficult getting the outstanding POAs cleared off my record. LAA really needs to get its act together and make it easier for money to be repaid

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ah well, the LA folk have never been known for being helpful, efficient, orderly, competent, on the ball, responsive, fair, just or reasonable. Nature of the beast.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • when I was in practice the LSC had a habit of demanding reports on historic cases where a report had already been made that the case had come to an end and final payment made....files well over 6 years old.. other firms had similar experiences. The way it worked was, they treated all payts made as on account. they then assumed you were not submitting a claim and took all the monies back. Never dispose of your old files...the LSC can claim back beyond the 6 year limit and then it is all for you to prove their disgraceful inefficiency

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (7)
  • Save

Attorney general quizzed on unduly lenient sentences

28 October 2016By

Stalking could be covered in any extension of review scheme.

lord lang

Lords call for recognition of ‘growing body of distinct Welsh law’

28 October 2016By

Constitution committee says further legislation needed to clarify new reserved powers settlement. 


MoJ opts into EU family law proposal over Brexit risk

28 October 2016By

Justice minister Sir Oliver Heald says it is in the UK’s interests to influence negotiations.

Browse over 4,300 law jobs Get jobs by email


Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition