The Gazette 1964/67

the legal aid fund under the Act without show ing "severe financial hardship." The Law Society has been well aware of the deficiencies of the Act since it came into force. But it recognises that it is a matter for Parlia ment to put right. As the New Law Journal commented recently, the title to the 1964 Act could well be amended at present to read : "An Act to provide exception ally for the occasional payment out of the legal aid fund of . . ." — (Terence Shaw, Daily Telegraph Legal Cor respondent, The Daily Telegraph, Monday, November 21, 1966). CASES OF THE MONTH Bog of Technicality This was a simple case of libel. It took 15 days to try; the summing-up lasted a day; the jury returned 13 special verdicts; the notice of appeal set out 7 separate grounds why the appeal should be allowed and 10 more why a new trial should be granted—the latter being split up into over 14 sub-grounds. The respon dents' cross-notice contained 15 separate grounds. The costs must be enormous. Lawyers should be ashamed that they had allowed the law of de famation to become bogged down in such a mass of technicalities that this should be possible. Diplock L. J. (Boston v. W. S. Bagshaw and Sons). Planning Permission — Notice to Applicant The appellants applied for planning permis sion to enable them to erect a building on their land in connection with the processing of chem icals. Planning permission was refused by the local authority and on appeal the refusal for permission was confirmed by the Minister. The company appealed against the Minister's decision. It was held (Q.B.D.; Megaw J. May 5, 1966) that the letter giving the Minister's decision was so obscure and would leave in the mind of an informed reader such real and substantial doubt as to the reasons for that decision and as to the matters the Minister did and did not take into account that it did not comply with Rule I (II) of the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Enquiries Procedure) Rules, 1962 which requires the Minister to notify an appellant, inter alias, of his decision and the reasons for it. (Givaudan & Co. Ltd., v. Minister of Housing and Local Government and Another). Negligence — Defective Tool A workman was injured in the eye by a splinter of steel from a hardened chisel that had been 80

£48,000 Provided—only £56 paid The Law Society, which administers the legal aid fund, set aside £48,000 for claims in 1964. Although the Act came into operation halfway through the financial year for legal aid accounts, only £56 was paid out. The Law Society, expecting claims to gather momentum as the Act became more widely known, retained the estimate for 1965-67 at about £48,000. Successful claims for that year reached less than £300. In all, about 30 people have made claims under the Act, and only eight have been successful. Total payments since the Act came into force in October, 1964, are still less than £500. Yet it is estimated that about 8,400 parties are successful each year in defending actions brought against them by legally-aided litigants. Insurance Firms—pressure to settle Although it is arguable that insurance com panies, firms, and other similar bodies do not suffer hardship in paying costs, it is equally argu able that they should not be under pressure to settle an action because they know there in no hope of recovering costs. In a case decided by the Court of Appeal last year, a husband who successfully defended a divorce petition by his legally-aided wife, applied for costs under the Act. These were refused on the grounds that it was not the practice of divorce courts before legal aid to award costs to a husband, and that the hus band had had two Continental holidays and had bought a car. It was argued that he had not suffered severe financial hardship and that it was not "just and equitable" in the circumstances to order costs from public funds. It was also held that in deciding what was "just and equitable," a court should consider what contribution to costs the respondent would have had to make if his income was lower and he had received legal aid. A person with a disposable income ol not more than £700 a year is entitled to claim legal aid, and the maximum contribution under the scheme is £150. So where costs are not more than £150, it is said that the unassisted party cannot have suffered as he would have had to make this contribution to the legal aid fund anyway. Somewhat ironically, the courts have now also decided that where an unsuccessful but assisted litigant takes his case to appeal the unassisted party can recover the costs of the appeal from