- with readers working within the Media & Information industries
- within Law Department Performance topic(s)
Henry's and Anna's article was published in the Financial Remedies Journal, 30 October 2025, and can be seen here.
Henry Hood, Senior Partner and Anna Roiser, Senior Knowledge Partner in our Family & Relationships department,explore the implications of Peel J's decision in CC v UU regarding the availability of Legal Services Payment Orders (LSPOs) for enforcement proceedings.
Henry and Anna believe the judgment unnecessarily restricts Legal Services Payment Orders (LSPOs) by excluding appeals, enforcement, and set aside applications once a final order is made. From their standpoint, this interpretation undermines the statutory purpose of LSPOs, which is to ensure access to justice for those without financial means throughout the litigation process, not just at the initial stage.
They highlight that section 22ZA(10) explicitly includes enforcement within the definition of "legal services," which they see as clear evidence that Parliament intended LSPOs to cover these proceedings. They stress that Peel J's narrow reading of "in relation to the proceedings" ignores this legislative intent and creates a gap that disproportionately affects vulnerable litigants. For them, the judgment risks leaving individuals unable to enforce or challenge orders, effectively rendering their rights illusory.
They further draw on case law principles, such as Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd, to argue that "proceedings" should be interpreted contextually and purposively. In their view, dividing litigation into rigid stages contradicts the holistic approach needed to achieve fairness. Henry and Anna believe that excluding LSPOs for appeals or enforcement frustrates the very policy behind the provision ensuring equality of arms and meaningful access to justice.
Finally, they question Peel J's treatment of set aside applications as outside Part II MCA 1973. Henry and Anna see these applications as integral to the original proceedings and argue that, even if LSPOs were deemed unavailable under statute, courts should consider common law solutions to prevent injustice. Their conclusion is clear: the interpretation of LSPO availability needs urgent judicial reconsideration to align with legislative purpose and protect vulnerable parties.
Read the full article on the Financial Remedies Journal [external link].
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.
