Share

Insolvent refugee charity fails in High Court bid for interim relief

Insolvent refugee charity fails in High Court bid for interim relief
News

Insolvent refugee charity fails in High Court bid for interim relief

Finance | Tania Mason | 1 Jul 2010

A High Court judge yesterday refused to order the Legal Services Commission to pay £600,000 to ensure that clients formerly represented by Refugee and Migrant Justice can continue to be represented by the charity’s staff until their cases are transferred to other law firms.

Martin Westgate QC, on behalf of eight former RMJ clients, had argued that the LSC should pay for 62 RMJ lawyers to continue representing vulnerable clients until they have secured new legal representation.

But Clive Lewis QC, representing the Legal Services Commission, said it was not the court’s place to “micro-manage” the winding up of an insolvent organisation and the transfer of cases to other lawyers.

He gave an assurance that the LSC would listen to RMJ’s concerns about the risks of clients slipping through the net but that it was best dealt with through dialogue and conversation rather than a court order.

Lewis reminded the judge that “RMJ is insolvent – it can’t pay its debts, it can’t pay its rent, it can’t pay its staff.  It owes £500,000 to HMRC. LSC needs to manage the consequences of this.

“It is for the LSC to decide whether to authorise further payment to an insolvent organisation that has demonstrated an inability to provide services within the financial constraints necessary.”

Agreement reached between LSC and administrators

Lewis also said that the LSC had already come to an agreement with the administrators that 33 RMJ staff would continue to be employed for the next six weeks and three of the offices would remain open so that all the cases could be categorised, prioritised and transferred in an orderly way to new providers.  According to Parishil Patel, acting for the administrators, the LSC has also offered a £20,000 contingency fund.

Patel added that the charity was owed at least £850,000 by the government so, while technically insolvent, it was not insolvent on the balance sheet test.

Manjit Gill QC, representing the Children’s Commissioner, added that no other provider had the same specialism in children’s cases as RMJ: “Mr Lewis’s model of simply boxing up files to transfer to another provider does not accord with the obligation to take into account the best interests of children. Child protection risks are not being addressed.”

Mr Justice Mitting said that in order to grant the order for interim relief of £600,000 he had to be sure that the LSC’s model of operating was unlawful. Westgate contended that it was because it did not “properly protect the interests of the clients”.  But Justice Mitting said it was better for the clients that their cases were passed as soon as possible to a “new, profitable provider rather than stay with a redundant RMJ one”.

Westgate argued that the chances of transferring all files – estimates vary between 7,500 and 12,000 – in six weeks were remote, as the LSC had so far managed to transfer fewer than 10 per cent since RMJ went into administration on 16 June.  In Ipswich, for example, just one case out of 80 had found a new home so far.

Judge: LSC's model 'not irrational'

But the judge concluded: “I am satisfied with LSC’s judgement that the interests of the clients, as well as the protection of the public purse, are best served by the rapid transfer of the files to new providers.  Nothing must be done that inhibits or delays that process.

“The six-week transfer may or may not be achievable, but this does not mean LSC’s proposals are irrational.  However they must be alert to the need to co-operate with others.”

A second application by the charity’s clients against the Home Secretary, seeking a blanket ban to prevent her from making any adverse asylum decisions against any RMJ clients before they have secured new legal representation, did not succeed either.

Essentially, the judge said that from what he had seen so far there were no grounds for requiring a blanket ban on decision-making. However, if there appeared to be systemic problems, particularly in the case of children or deportation cases, the claimants could return to court and the application would be heard again.

Click here to read Tania Mason's blog about this story

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Free eNews

Macmillan Cancer Support announces £3m corporate partnership with owners of Argos

27 Mar 2015

Macmillan has today announced that it is launching a two-year partnership with Home Retail Group, which...

IoF and government launch 'memorandum of understanding' on payroll giving

26 Mar 2015

The Institute of Fundraising and the Treasury have agreed a new ‘memorandum of understanding’ to improve...

Introduce separate legislation for commercial 'umbrella' lotteries, say MPs

25 Mar 2015

Separate legislation requiring higher payouts to charity should be introduced to govern larger commercial...

Bubb: 'Overzealous' regulatory approach to Muslim charities harming fight against terror

27 Mar 2015

Acevo's chief executive has warned that an "overzealous" approach by regulators is harming, rather than...

Government accepts most proposals on Protection of Charities Bill but rejects terror recommendations

27 Mar 2015

The government yesterday accepted most of a Parliamentary committee’s recommendations on a bill to give...

Charity accused of supporting a terrorist group under investigation

27 Mar 2015

The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into a charity which failed to complete an action...

Social media 'slacktivism' encourages people to donate, finds JustGiving report

18 Mar 2015

People who share a fundraising page on social media are four times more likely to donate than those who...

Samaritans closes Twitter monitoring app permanently

11 Mar 2015

Samaritans has confirmed that it has permanently closed its app that was designed to monitor people’s...

Daniel Phelan dies, aged 58

13 Feb 2015

Daniel Phelan, owner and editor-in-chief of Civil Society Media, passed away on Wednesday following a...

Join the discussion

 Twitter button

@CSFinance