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

Charities could lose out on gift aid under devolution settlement, tax experts warn

27 Nov 2014

Proposals from the Smith Commission to give Scotland powers over the rate of income tax will have “significant...

More will-writers prompting clients to leave legacy gifts, research shows

27 Nov 2014

More solicitors and will-writers are telling their clients about leaving a legacy than at any time in...

ASA bans Health Lottery advert for encouraging gambling behaviour

26 Nov 2014

The Advertising Standards Agency has ruled that an advert from the Health Lottery promoting an online...

Joint registration between Charity Commission and HMRC delayed

27 Nov 2014

Plans for the Charity Commission and HM Revenue & Customs to set up a joint registration process for...

NCVO backs Commission's focus on regulation

26 Nov 2014

NCVO supports the Charity Commission’s decision to focus more on regulation, but is cautious about the...

MPs urged to retain amendments to judicial review bill to protect charities

26 Nov 2014

A group of legal bodies have written to MPs to urge them to protect judicial review from changes that...

'Be careful what you say and don't be boring on social media'

27 Nov 2014

Don’t be too serious on social media and be prepared to pay for premium services, delegates at yesterday’s...

'Focus on people as well as technology', IT experts told

27 Nov 2014

IT directors need to learn when to step back and allow others in their organisation to experiment with...

JustGiving launches free guide to raising money using social media

25 Nov 2014

JustGiving and social media consultancy Social Misfits Media have launched a guide to how charities and...

Join the discussion

 Twitter button

@CSFinance