Report comment

Not only that, there used to be the Statutory Charge applied to legal aid for matrimonial cases which meant that the legal aid that was granted was recovered at the end of the case.
The advantage of legal aid for people who qualified for it was that they were represented and this saved time and money and wasted court time AND the State recovered the cost of legal aid through the Statutory Charge.
Also was there not a provision which said that when a party applied for legal aid the legal aid agency could ask them to sell assets to fund the case??
The problem is that the myth has been promoted by the MoJ and other interested parties that instructing a Solicitor leads to huge bills and a Court battle so people try to deal with issues themselves-as in the reported case. This lead to the imposition of Mediation as a way to avoid the "Court Battle". The truth is that Mediation works best as part of the divorce litigation process AND the "Court Battle" is a rarity given that only about 8% of cases relating to financial issues result in a final hearing. Most cases are resolved through lawyer assisted negotiation. Instructing a solicitor, for most people, results in a fair settlement and saves Court time.
Isn't it about time that MoJ revisited the funding of divorce cases and also revisited its propaganda on Mediation as a direct alternative to the "Court Battle", given that the Court Battle is such a rarity..