Report comment

It happens lower down the scale too. A case where only a house worth £85,000 was involved, plus £10,000 cash. The husband owned the house before meeting his wife. The £10,000 was the value achieved from surrendered endowment policies which he was going to pay off most of the mortgage with. She was a physically abusive woman and the man had to leave her. She filed for divorce getting legal aid. He, on only £9000 a year did not qualify for legal aid! Her solicitor instructed a barrister (!?) and there were three hearings, because she was asking for 100% of everything. He eventually gave in when his costs had mounted to £6000 trying to retain at least a small sum. His own solicitor said, every time I go to court for £1000 more it will cost you £1500 in fees. Her legal aid bill was over £20,000. She got everything! How unfair is that? If both parties got legal aid they would be on an equal footing, but there should be very strict rules as to what the funds should pay for. A barrister in this case was totally over the top and put the wife at unfair advantage. A judge should be ruling that both sides are treated fairly and if one is being vengeful or malicious their funding should cease until they become more reasonable. This would most likely reduce overall legal costs and would be far fairer than making it even harder for people to get legal aid in the first place!