In your coverage of the policy paper from the Social Housing Law Association (SHLA) about legal aid, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) denied that it 'did not hold data on the outcome of cases' and that '60% of funded cases concluded in 2006/07 achieved a substantive benefit for the client' (see [2007] Gazette, 25 October, 4).
One of the points made by SHLA is that the notion of 'substantive benefit' is too subjective and misleading. Consider the recent case of R (Lawer) v Restormel BC [2007] EWHC 2299 (Admin), where a legally aided woman obtained an out-of-hours injunction that required a council to house her until the injunction was set aside the following week. The High Court judge described the case as hopeless and devoid of arguable merit and that it had always had no reasonable prospect of success.
However, Ms Lawer obtained a 'substantive benefit' because she secured accommodation. There are many other cases where funded clients secure adjournments or extra time, which may enable their lawyers to claim 'a substantive benefit', even if the case is ultimately lost. Thus the LSC's data concerning the outcome of cases is of little value.
The problem could be overcome by the LSC replacing its substantive benefit test with an objective and meaningful one: were costs substantially won or lost? If the LSC recorded and published this data, then the SHLA strongly suspects that the figure would be significantly lower than the 60% derived from the 'substantive benefit' test.
Nick Billingham, Social Housing Law Association
No comments yet