In fact, that's a nice pun but entirely unfair (regular readers will know this is not something that generally stops me using a good pun once thought of). Cobb J's committee has reported on private law, and it makes many proposals and politely passes back some bucks. To government, to those responsible for "policy". Like the one about just how the courts are to deal with cases that genuinely require experts but for which there is no mechanism for payment. It's easy to give something the committee treatment. But not even a Cobb Committee can't solve unanswerable riddles any more than Bob the Builder can fix it without his tools....
Interestingly, no 26 weeks proposal and unsurprisingly many pleas for more and better information for LiPs.
I planned to blog properly about all this tonight but am feeling rather unwell. And its getting late.
Link to the material is here (click through to Guidance Locator). I will post a proper blog in due course... It is important.
Incidentally, it comes just as the stats for private law issue have dropped by 9% (Oct 13 compared to Oct 12), following a pretty massive post-LASPO spike. I think its pretty clear that was a lag from last minute certificates granted just prior to 1 April, the question is whether or not the 9% drop is representative of the underlying issue rates for those now ineligible for public funding. Have they given up already? Or will we see rates pick up again?
Anyhoo. Off to bed. Have a private law case tomorrow in respect of which public funding and expert evidence has been crucial...As with all these cases I wonder what would happen if it had been post 1 April?