Social Welfare Lawyers in the Centre of Birmingham

News

Business As Usual

Despite the Coronavirus lockdown, we are continuing with business as usual at CLP. Though we are not carrying out any office appointments, we are arranging telephone appointments with both existing and new clients. Please telephone our switchboard on 0121 685 8595. Please note that, during this emergency period, the switchboard will have slightly reduced hours and will be open between 9am and 5pm.

Town-Wide Injunction

Harlow Council in combination with Essex County Council have obtained an injunction against Gypsies and Travellers covering 454 parcels of land:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11449118/Traveller-sites-banned-from-entire-town-as-High-Court-issues-unprecedented-injunction.html

Though TAT were contacted by two of the Defendants prior to the Order being made, unfortunately they were not eligible for legal aid and did not instruct us further.  TAT feel that such injunctions are highly challengeable and would be very interested in hearing from anyone affected by this injunction or any other such injunction.  Please telephone us on our Advice Line on 0121 685 8677.

Use Your Vote

After the last disastrous 5 years of the Coalition Government which has seen vast areas of law taken out of scope for Legal Aid, restrictions on the ability of Legal Aid firms to take judicial review actions and a 10% across the board cut in Civil Legal Aid fees, it is vital that supporters of Legal Aid and Access to Justice use their vote in the upcoming General Election.

R (Ben Hoare Bell & Others) -v- The Lord Chancellor

R ( Ben Hoare Bell, Deighton Pierce Glynn, Mackintosh Law, Public Law Solicitors and Shelter) -v- The Lord Chancellor and the Director of Legal Aid Casework [2015] EWHC 523 (Admin)

In April 2014 the Government introduced Regulations which meant that, in certain circumstances, legal aid providers would not be paid for running a judicial review case. In this judgment, the High Court has found those Regulations to be unlawful.

Article 8 After A Possession Order Has Been Made

In R (JL) – v – Secretary of State for Defence [2012] EWCA Civ 449, the Court of Appeal upheld the Judge at first instance who had held that a proportionality argument could be raised at the enforcement stage of a possession order (i.e. after it had been made and when a writ or warrant to bailiffs to execute the order had been issued) although only in exceptional cases, otherwise it would be an abuse of the process of the court to do so.  Such a case could be where “there is a fundamental change in the occupants’ personal circumstances after the making of a possession order but before its enforcement” (para 41) or, as in this case, the state of the law at the time of the possession hearing was that the proportionality argument could not be made (para 42).  In the recent Court of Appeal Judgment in Lawal – v – Circle 33 Housing Trust Limited ([2014] EWCA Civ 1514), the Court of Appeal added a case where an Article 8 defence had been advanced before the first instance judge but she “either declined to hear it or peremptorily dismissed it but in either case, she gave no reasons for doing so” (para 90, Sir Terence Etherton LJ).

To read the Judgment in this case, see: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1514.html&query=Lawal+and+v+and+Circle+and+33&method=boolean