Report comment

Since I was in articles, forty-odd years ago, I have believed that we are too lily-livered about ordering security for costs in this country, especially for appeals, and it has got worse over that time. In those days every appellant to the House of Lords who was not legally aided or a government department had to give security; that was dropped in, I think, 1997.

The argument seems to run that cases and appeals should not be "stifled". That is exactly what should happen rather than a successful Defendant/Respondent being left out of pocket.

And don't get me started on the position of the successful but unassisted (and uninsured) opponent of an unsuccessful assisted party. The legal aid fund in all its manifestations should have been made to stand in the shoes of its assisted party from Day One in 1949, and it still should. And so should the EHRC.