Challenging legal Aid?

My understanding is that if you receive Legal Aid, you have to try mediation. Has it been offered?

Hadenoughnow

No but this is not a divorce case. It is action to set aside the Consent Order as the ex husband doesnt remember isgning it, had colitis and drank.

Its notoriously difficult to have a correctly implemented sealed order set aside and i don`t like the agreement is no reason to attempt it, nor is i can`t remember signing it.

Financial issues really aren't my area, Koeksister, but certainly a partner's finances are to be taken into account when considering eligibility for legal aid, and her income should be added to your ex's. If, jointly, they have sufficient disposable income to take a trip to Africa, then, jointly, they should have enough to pay their legal fees, at least until the money runs out.

The rules are set out here: calculator.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/ecalc/guidance.asp, but you may need to contact the LSC for specific guidance on a particular case.

It is fair to say that I, for one, don't want my taxes used to pay the legal fees of someone who can afford to pay.

You say that but as my Barrister said the court may set it aside in the interest of fairness. Even though the agreement was concluded between two consenting adults.

By the time a decision is made by the court a fortune has been spent in legal fees.

Is this a case where you could apply for an early Directions hearing to see if the case would even be allowed to proceed?

This may be one way of getting it stopped quickly.

When the time for appealing has expired, the permission of the court is required for the appeal to set aside the order to proceed out of time. Irrespective of legal aid if the judge thinks the case has no merit permission won't be granted. The general court rule that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party applies.

In Edgar v Edgar it was said starting freely negotiated agreements defining the parties requirements ought to be adhered to unless there is a compelling reason is shown to the contrary. Formal agreements, properly and fairly arrived at with competent legal advice, should not be set aside unless there are good and substantial grounds for concluding that an injustice will be done by holding the parties to the terms of their agreement. From the legal POV a settlement is just if it complies with s25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and other law.

Undue pressure by one side, exploitation of a dominant position to secure an unreasonable advantage, inadequate knowledge, possibly bad legal advice, an important change of circumstances, unforeseen or overlooked at the time of making the agreement, are all relevant when considering if there has been injustice.


With regard to the partner it's whether they are co-habiting that matters and the extent of their financial relationship. There is no definition of co-habitation and it is notoriously difficult to prove.