The Law Society & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v The Lord Chancellor

The Law Society & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v The Lord Chancellor

The Lord Chancellor lawfully understood that investment costs were not included in the KPMG model, rationally assessed that interim payments and other support measures would assist providers in meeting those costs, and was not required to undertake further investigation or modelling. The approach adopted was within the range of reasonable responses and did not breach the Tameside or Wednesbury standards. The assumptions challenged by the claimants were matters for evaluative judgment and were not irrational.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: The Queen on the Application of the Law Society; Appellant/claimant: London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association and Others; Respondent/defendant: The Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (divisional Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Legal Aid, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Statutory Duties, Consultation Requirements
Administrative Law Public Law Judicial Review Legal Aid Wednesbury Unreasonableness Statutory Duties Consultation Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of the Law Society

Appellant/claimant

London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association and Others

Appellant/claimant

The Lord Chancellor

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (divisional Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Chancellor lawfully assessed the impact of investment costs on the viability of proposed Duty Provider Work (DPW) contracts for criminal legal aid services.
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Chancellor was required to further investigate or quantify investment costs before implementing the DPW contracts.
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Chancellor's reliance on interim payments and other support measures was rational and legally sufficient to address investment costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Chancellor lawfully understood that investment costs were not included in the KPMG model, rationally assessed that interim payments and other support measures would assist providers in meeting those costs, and was not required to undertake further investigation or modelling. The approach adopted was within the range of reasonable responses and did not breach the Tameside or Wednesbury standards. The assumptions challenged by the claimants were matters for evaluative judgment and were not irrational.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.