Campaigning solicitor to shut firm after court defeat

Yvonne Hossack, a campaigning solicitor specialising in legal challenges to stop elderly people being evicted from care homes, has decided to close her sole practice tomorrow.

Hossack told Solicitors Journal that her home was now at risk after she lost a battle over the loss of her legal aid contract at the Court of Appeal and costs were awarded against her.

The Northampstonshire sole practitioner applied in 2010 for contracts in social welfare law in each of the 125 areas in England and Wales, but the LSC rejected all of her tenders apart from one, for Wiltshire, which was later terminated.

She was granted permission to apply for judicial review by the Court of Appeal, but only in respect of the contract for Northamptonshire. Her application was dsimissed by Mr Justice Blake, and she appealed once again.

Hossack said the LSC had rejected her offer of £18,000 in costs, and described the costs order made against her as “very spiteful and sad”.

She went on: “The LSC knew that saying no to my offer will mean the sale of my home.

“This is not an honourable way to deal with a person who has spent 15 years of her life giving everything they had to the poor.”

Hossacks said despite losing her legal aid contract, she had not turned clients away. Instead, she cashed in her life insurance and pension.

She said no social welfare contract had been awarded in Northamptonshire, leaving thousands of people without a specialist solicitor.

Delivering the leading judgment in R(on the application of Hossacks) v the LSC [2012] EWCA Civ 1203, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said: “I do not doubt the appellant’s altruism and belief that her services are of enormous benefit to those for whom she acts, and who could not pay her fees themselves.

“Sadly, she either did not consider or did not understand the tender rules relating to her applications. The Commission was entitled, and indeed bound, to reject her applications.”

Stanley Burnton LJ went on: “While we have every sympathy with the appellant, we see no basis on which the court could properly reject the respondent’s application for costs.

“Her impecuniosity and the fact that her activity both as a solicitor and as a proposed foster parent may be or indeed are in the public interest does not justify depriving the Commission of the normal order.

“Moreover, the appellant was clearly warned of the costs risks of pursuing her application for permission to appeal and her application for disclosure, which was liable to be very expensive indeed.

“The court directed a rolled up hearing for her benefit, so that her claim could be determined as soon as possible, as she sought. It follows that the appellant must pay the respondent’s costs, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.”

Mr Justice Morgan and Lord Justice Lloyd agreed.

A spokesman for the LSC said: “It must be remembered that Mrs Hossack’s bid contained fundamental errors.

“The Court of Appeal noted that Mrs Hossack had been clearly warned of the costs risks of pursuing her application for permission to appeal and further disclosure. We will be commencing the detailed assessment process in due course.

“We continue to have provision of social welfare law services in Northamptonshire from several offices. We are satisfied the contracts to deliver this advice are able to meet the current demand for services within the area.”