LSC settles social welfare judicial review

Leeds firm Davies Gore Lomax has settled a judicial review of the social welfare tender with the LSC.

The firm argued that it was wrong to deny the firm a contract because it did not have an 'approved intermediary' for debt relief (see Solicitors Journal 154/38, 12 October 2010).

Lomax said the judicial review, due to be heard by the High Court in London at the end of last month, settled a few days earlier and the firm had been awarded a new social welfare contract.

He said the firm had also been told it could continue to run the duty possession scheme at Leeds County Court, which it set up in 2004.

'We now have what we originally started out to get three months ago,' Lomax said. 'I'm pleased with the result, but it has come at a cost in time, energy and emotion.

'It has been a thoroughly unpleasant three months, with instability for all our staff. It should never have been allowed to happen. The whole tendering process was a very serious mistake.'

Lomax said he had received inquiries from other firms interesting in challenging the social welfare tender, and there could be further judicial reviews.

A spokesman for the LSC confirmed that the judicial review had been settled.

'Our ongoing verification process is seeing some changes to existing contract awards,' he added.

In a separate development, the LSC has decided not to appeal against a High Court ruling that the tender process for the new family legal aid contracts was unlawful.

Lord Justices Moses and Mr Justice Beatson ruled, in a judicial review brought by the Law Society, that the new contract offers should be quashed because the criteria were published too late for solicitors to take action (see Solicitors Journal 154/37, 5 October 2010).

The LSC has since extended the life of existing family-related contracts to midnight on 14 December 2010 and is discu-

ssing with the Law Society whether to extend this further.

'The priority is to focus on the delivery of future public services. Any appeal would only prolong the uncertainty over the future of family legal aid contracts, causing difficulties for clients and providers alike,' a spokesman for the LSC said.

The spokesman said LSC was working closely with representative bodies and the MoJ to resolve questions relating to the future extension of the contract, harmonisation of family fees and allocation of new matter starts.

Under the comprehensive spending review, the MoJ has agreed to cut £350m from the legal aid budget. Private law family work is expected to be among the casualties.