QASA claimants bid to fight on to Court of Appeal


Court of Appeal: QASA opposition rolls on

The legal challenge to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) is not yet dead after it emerged that the claimants have gone to the Court of Appeal to seek permission to appeal.

Earlier this month the permission to appeal its dismissal of the judicial review of the Legal Services Board’s (LSB) decision to approve QASA, saying there was no reasonable prospect of a successful challenge.

The president of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, sat on the judicial review, along with Mr Justice Bean and Mr Justice Cranston. They said that though “professional concern” about the impact of QASA may have justified commencing proceedings, it “does not justify them being taken further”.

The decision to seek the appeal court’s permission means that introduction of QASA is stayed until the proceedings have concluded, however.

An LSB spokesman said the parties are currently waiting to hear from the court about the timing of the application.

Meanwhile, newly published LSB papers show that it paid Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) £30,000 for its work on the judicial review before changing lawyers because of concerns over cost.

When using HSF, the LSB suggested that its costs for the entire action might reach £400,000 – a figure Mr Justice Bean said was “at first sight staggering” during one pre-trial hearing – before it changed to Field Fisher Waterhouse and halved the estimate.

At the time, the LSB told Legal Futures that the move was about managing its exposure to costs once the court had granted permission to bring the judicial review.

An update from chief executive Chris Kenny for the November meeting of the LSB said HSF, as with all members of the LSB’s legal panel, was appointed after an open competition.

“The agreed charging rates were discounted from commercial rates and set at the level approved by the Government Procurement Service. Having undertaken the work up to permission stage, HSF then provided the LSB with an additional 66% discount. We have therefore incurred costs with HSF in the region of £30,000.

“Field Fisher Waterhouse has estimated its costs to conclusion of the matter in the sum of £90,000, with combined counsel’s fees expected to increase the LSB’s total bill to around £200,000 (exclusive of VAT).”

The High Court set a £150,000 cap on the recoverable costs, and the Criminal Bar Association – which backed the four individual claimants in the judicial review – is now raising the money to pay it.

In refusing permission to appeal, the High Court also refused an application to extend the protective costs order to cover the costs incurred in any appeal to the Court of Appeal, saying it was for that court to decide.

Tags:





Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

21 November 2019

Analysing the October PII renewal

Our clients that renewed during this period recorded an average fee increase of 7.5%. The partner size segment that experienced the largest growth in percentage terms was 11-25 partners, at 11.3%.

Read More

Loading animation