The director of Blavo & Co will not be called to give evidence in a case in which the lord chancellor is seeking to recoup £22m in legal aid payments, the High Court has been told.

Barrister Robert Bourne, representing John Blavo, told the court at the start of the fourth day of the hearing that he decided he will not call John Blavo or Fred Blavo, who was a practice manager at the firm, which was closed in 2015. Solicitor Lee-Ann Jennine Frampton-Anderson, who was a partner at the firm, was cross-examined by barrister Rachel Sleeman, representing the lord chancellor, on Friday.

Giving evidence yesterday was Paul Henson, the Legal Aid Agency's finance and risk committee chair, who was questioned by Bourne about money paid to the firm under its civil and crime contracts.

Bourne told Henson: 'You're aware of the central allegation in this case, which is that Blavo & Co... carried out mental health work and submitted claims for work it did not do, 23,000 claims... [with a] total value of £22m.'

Henson was told the firm had contracts to perform clinical negligence, mental health, debt, housing, immigration and asylum matters.

Bourne said: 'A way of checking whether or not the figure of 23,000 claims for mental health is correct could be to look to the share of work which is paid other types of work and the share that was paid for mental health work.' Henson agreed.

Bourne took Henson through a detailed breakdown in relation to £27m that was paid out by the agency for civil work conducted by the firm's 18 offices over a three-year period. 'But if you take the £27m that's said to be fraudulent or no work done allegedly in this case, the balance of all the other work is £5m,' Bourne said. Henson agreed.

Bourne continued: 'Which is about, I'm no good at maths, but you're probably talking about £1.6m a year. Now if you divide that by the number of offices that there were, 18, not all of them running at the same time, that means that if the legal aid authorities were right, it's about £1.6m divided by 18. It's a very small number, isn't it?' Henson replied: 'It's subjective, how small a number it is.'

Bourne and Sleeman questioned Henson about the agency's payment processes. Henson told the court that the agency has different methods of payment depending on the work that the firm has done. These include contracted payments, fixed monthly payments agreed between the agency and the firm, variable monthly payments, certain advocacy cases which are paid in arrears, and licence work payments.

The hearing continues.