UK: Court Of Appeal Just Another Stop On The Road For QASA

Last Updated: 15 December 2014
Article by Matthew Lohn

Dispute Resolution analysis: Matthew Lohn, senior partner of Fieldfisher, considers the Court of Appeal's decision on the lawfulness of the controversial Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA).

Original news

R (on the application of Lumsdon and others) v Legal Services Board[2014] EWCA Civ 1276, [2014] All ER (D) 71 (Oct).

The Bar Standards Board (BSB), and others, wished to introduce QASA in respect of criminal practitioners. The scheme was approved by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The claimants, who were criminal law barristers, unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the scheme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal and held that the scheme was not unlawful.

What is the background to the appeal?

The Court of Appeal has just handed down the second part of its ruling in a challenge funded by the Criminal Bar Association to the introduction of a scheme to assess the quality of court advocates. QASA has from the outset been controversial attracting vocal criticism from members of the bar and in addition some adverse judicial comment. The Divisional Court first considered the matter in late 2013 rejecting the challenge which was renewed before the court (after an initial rejection by the court following an application on the papers). Dinah Rose QC and Tom de La Mare QC appeared pro bono for the appellants.

How did the Court of Appeal approach the challenge to the lawfulness of the QASA scheme?

Before the Divisional Court, the appellants put forward five grounds of challenge to the decision that QASA is lawful. The court considered each ground separately, rejecting all five.

The appellants' first ground was that the Divisional Court erred in its approach to the independence of the advocate and the judiciary. In addressing this ground, the court considered that the LSB did not act unlawfully in concluding that there was no significant risk that QASA would undermine the independence of advocates. They also expressed that if it were necessary for them to decide whether QASA undermines the independence of the advocate, they would conclude that it does not. The appellants' argument that QASA would undermine judicial independence was also rejected.

The next ground of challenge was that QASA provided no scope for advocates to appeal against the content of evaluations or decisions made under the scheme. While the court rejected this contention, it did express the hope that the BSB would clarify its appeals policy.

The court also rejected the appellants' third ground--that the standard of review which the Divisional Court should have applied was the more demanding one of proportionality, rather than Wednesbury unreasonableness. (I address this topic in further detail later.)

Finally, the appellants contended that:

  • QASA was an 'authorisation scheme' for the purposes of the Provisions of Services Regulations 2009, SI 2009/2999 (the Regulations), and
  • it must therefore be proportionate as required by the Regulations, reg 14.

The court considered that it was not for them to decide whether QASA is an 'authorisation scheme'--this was a question for the Court of Justice of the European Union to resolve. They also considered that it was not for them to decide whether QASA was disproportionate. They were, however satisfied that the LSB was entitled to conclude that QASA was proportionate, and therefore rejected the appellants' final heads of challenge.

What did the Court of Appeal have to say on the issue of a proportionality test in domestic law?

The appellants submitted that instead of the Wednesbury standard of review (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 2 All ER 680), the Divisional Court should have applied the more demanding standard of proportionality, because of QASA's potential to infringe upon fundamental constitutional principles, namely the independence of the advocate and the judiciary.

The court rejected this submission for two reasons. Firstly, they found that applying a proportionality test would be inconsistent with the Legal Services Act 2007, s 3(3)(a) (LSA 2007), which merely requires the LSB to 'have regard' to five principles, including that regulatory activities should be 'proportionate'. The court considered that this did not equate to an obligation for the LSB to promote regulatory activities which are proportionate, and that the five principles were merely aspirational principles, not legally enforceable principles which the LSB is obliged to achieve.

The court's second reason was that QASA does not actually involve any interference with fundamental rights or constitutional principles. As I mentioned above, the court was of the opinion that QASA would not undermine the independence of the advocate or the judiciary. They therefore concluded that the Divisional Court was correct to apply a 'heightened' Wednesbury standard in this case.

How did the Court of Appeal tackle the matter of costs?

Appeal against the Divisional Court's costs order

The appellants contended that because no reasons were given for the Divisional Court's order for them to pay the costs of both the LSB and the BSB, the court should set it aside. They put forward several arguments in support of this contention.

One key argument was that their claim raised issues of public importance, and that in such cases it may be inappropriate to award costs against an unsuccessful claimant, per R (Greenpeace) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2005] EWCA Civ 1656, [2005] All ER (D) 365 (Oct). The public interest points they cited included the potential impact of QASA on the administration of justice, and the fact that their challenge allowed the Divisional Court to identify flaws in the scheme and identify areas for improvement.

The appellants also cited the case of Bolton MDC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 1176, [1996] 1 All ER 184, which established that unsuccessful claimants should not be ordered to pay the costs of interested parties in addition to those of the defendant, unless the interested parties demonstrated separate issues which justified separate representation. They argued the BSB failed to demonstrate they had sufficiently distinct interests to justify separate representation from the LSB.

Other arguments the appellants raised included the fact that the claimants' lawyers acted on a pro bono basis, and that the litigation was brought in the interests of the whole legal profession, making it unfair to impose all of the costs on one segment of one profession, namely the criminal bar.

The court rejected the appellant's challenge and upheld the original costs order. Citing the case of English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 3 All ER 385, which established that some judicial decisions did not require reasons unless they were specifically asked for, the court rejected the appellants' argument that the Divisional Court should have given reasons for their costs order.

While the court accepted the appellant's argument that the claim raised issues of public importance, they held that this was at most a factor to be taken into account, and agreed with us that it was not exceptional enough a reason to deny us, the successful party, our costs.

The court also agreed with our argument that the protective costs order (PCO) was a relevant consideration, in that a fair balance between the interests of the parties was struck when the level of the PCO was set, and that this militated against the argument that there should be no order for costs against the appellants.

The court was also satisfied that the Divisional Court was entitled to the view that the BSB had sufficiently distinct interests to justify their separate representation, and therefore held that they too were entitled to their costs.

Costs of the appeal

The appellants argued that they should not be ordered to pay the costs of either the LSB or the BSB for the appeal case.

Citing Bolton, they submitted that it would be even more unusual for a second set of costs to be awarded against them at appeal, because by that stage the issues should have crystallised, and the extent to which the BSB had separate interests from the LSB should have been clarified.

The appellants also made two further arguments. First, the fact that the court agreed with them that the appeal system under QASA was unclear justified their bringing the appeal. Secondly, the LSB unnecessarily resurrected a point regarding the perception of lack of independence of the advocate. This amounted to unreasonable conduct, and was an additional reason for the court to make no order for costs.

In response, the LSB argued that the appellants had themselves chosen to appeal. Therefore, there was a presumption that they should bear some risk in relation to costs. The LSB also argued that the PCO was a factor to be construed against making no order for costs, and that taking the exceptional course of making such an order would only impose a burden on the rest of the Bar, given that the LSB is ultimately funded by levies imposed on the legal professions.

The court agreed with the appellants that it was unnecessary for the BSB to be represented at appeal, and as such ordered that they pay their own costs. However, they rejected the two further arguments put forward by the appellants, and held that there was no reason to deny the LSB its costs, given that we successfully resisted the appeal in its entirety. As such, they awarded the LSB its costs up to the level of the PCO.

With the lawfulness of the scheme confirmed, what's next for QASA?

For the moment it may be premature to discuss implementation. The appellants are preparing further submissions seeking to take the case to the Supreme Court. Until the outcome of this further challenge is known, the BSB will have some breathing space before it needs to finally consider the realities of implementation.

Matthew Lohn chairs Fieldfisher's supervisory board and also practises as a lawyer in the firm's public and regulatory law group. He specialises in advising statutory and royal charter regulators and a wide range of non-departmental public bodies on all aspects of their work. He has particular experience in advising on compliance and discipline issues, often within the healthcare or finance sectors. In R (Lumsdon) v LSB, Matthew was instructed by the LSB.

Interviewed by Kate Beaumont.

This article was first published on Lexis® PSL Dispute Resolution on the 13th November 2014.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions