Judge refuses injunction over public law and mental health legal aid tenders

A High Court judge has refused to extend an injunction restraining the Legal Services Commission from issuing new legal aid contracts for cases involving public law and mental health in high security hospitals.

The new contracts are due to commence on 15 November. Two firms, Public Interest Lawyers and RMNJ, have launched proceedings for judicial review of the LSC’s tenders. Nine other law firms – including Bindmans, Duncan Lewis and Pierce Glynn – are standing behind them.

Mr Justice Cranston declined to grant interim relief and to extend the existing injunctions. He ruled that the balance of convenience lay in favour of discharging those injunctions, noting in particular the effect on new entrants in mental health and public law.

The judge said firms that had been awarded contracts and made arrangements such as opening premises and taking on staff would suffer loss.

Mr Justice Cranston said although the two claimant firms had received significantly less matter starts than the amount they had bid for, they had been allocated enough to cover the period before the substantive hearing.

However, the judge did make a protective costs order (PCO) in favour of Public Interest Lawyers and RMNJ - this is believed to be the first time this has happened.

Setting the PCO at £100,000, Mr Justice Cranston acknowledged that the firms had a private interest in the proceedings. But he added that the firms supporting the litigation were prominent players in advancing public interest matters.

In particular, the judge regarded Public Interest Lawyers as “a surrogate for others who seek to advance the public interest through public law actions”.

“That being the case it seems to me that it devalues the work these firms undertake to describe their actions as primarily commercial,” he added. “It seems to me that private interest is not a major factor in the balance in this case.”

No date has been set to hear the applications for judicial review.