A law firm’s conduct in a family case ‘fell so far below’ an acceptable standard that it was ‘unreasonable’, a court has found.
London-based Cartwright King was instructed by a mother over a child arrangements order. The firm filed an unsigned witness statement without permission and did not provide the mother with a non-English version of the document until 14 months after it was prepared. Cartwright King’s conduct resulted in ‘unfairness’ to the mother and an adjournment, causing prejudice to the father and wasting the court’s resources.
The firm consented to an order by Mr Recorder O’Grady that £625.86 of costs, including VAT, was not to be charged to the mother’s legal aid certificate. The costs included preparation of the witness statement, position statement, hearing, bundle, Scott schedule and counsel’s brief.
The mother’s ‘purported’ witness statement in the family court proceedings was written in English. The mother, the judgment in M & R (Children) (Refusal of Legal Aid Costs) said, does not speak English and communicates in Urdu. An interpreter had not gone through the document with her. The English version, when read out to the mother by her relative, was ‘replete with errors’ and ‘[did] not reflect her case’.
The judge, sitting in the family court at Leicester, said: ‘The failure of the mother’s solicitors to prepare her written evidence in accordance with Part 22 of the Family Procedure Rules and Peter Jackson J’s [as he then was] basic principles has compromised the fairness of the litigation for the mother.’
Read more
In its position statement, the firm ‘expressed deep regret for the inconvenience it had caused’.The omission of a signature under a statement of truth was described ‘as “an unfortunate technicality”’.
The judge said: ‘I find the conduct of Cartwright King Solicitors taken cumulatively fell so far below the standard of acceptable conduct that that the conduct was unreasonable. The consequences of this conduct were unfairness to the mother and the necessity of the case being adjourned, thus causing considerable prejudice to the father and waste of court’s finite resources.’
Refusing to allow £625.86 in legal aid costs, the judge said: ‘It must be observed that costs that the court will refuse to allow are modest in the context of the prejudice done to the father and the waste of court’s resources.’
