M v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Ors

Mr Paul Bowen QC and Ms Eloise le Santo (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the Claimant Ms Kerry Bretherton (instructed by LAA) for the Defendant Mr James Eadie QC (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the 1st Interested Party The 2nd Interested Party did not appear and was not represented Hearing dates: 14 March and 14 April 2014 ____________________

Part 1 of Schedule 1 sets out those types of cases for which civil legal aid is available. They are the cases which Parliament has identified as being those where there is the greatest need of civil legal aid. They include cases concerning the care, supervision, and protection of children, cases about special education needs and the like. The reference to whether or not the individual "qualifies" for the services is a reference to both the means and the merits criteria, which are dealt with in greater detail below.

Accordingly, there are three individual criteria that had to be met in this case and which can conveniently together be called 'the means criteria': the standard criteria (Regulation 39); the costs benefit criteria (Regulation 42); and the prospects of success criteria (Regulation 43).

(c) The definition of "the reasonable private paying individual", referred to at Regulation 42(3), is set out in Regulation 7 as follows:

The emphasis above, which is mine, highlights the particular passage about which the claimant complains, and with which I deal in greater detail in Section 8 below.