XN000022-1984-07-11 — Page 16

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1984

1984

14

+ IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED THAT THE SCHEME SHOULD BE SELF- FINANCING AND THAT THOSE WHO ARE SUCCESSFUL IN LITIGATION SHOULD PAY A PROPORTION OF THEIR DAMAGES TO THE SCHEME. THOSE WHO ARE UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGANTS SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE AT ALL, ALTHOUGH ALL APPLICANTS WILL BE CALLED UPON TO PAY $300 ON THE IR APPLICATION AND A FURTHER $400 IF THE APPLICATION IS SUCCESSFUL, + MR THOMAS SAID.

ANY COSTS RECOVERED FROM THE DEFENDANT WOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S CONTRIBUTION. NO CONTRIBUTION WOULD EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE AMOUNT RECOVERED, AND THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID COULD WAIVE CONTRIBUTIONS IF HE CONSIDERED THAT PAYMENT WOULD CAUSE SERIOUS HARDSHIP.

MR THOMAS SAID THAT WHILE IT WAS ENVISAGED THAT THE SCHEME WOULD BE SELF-FINANCING, AN INITIAL LOAN WAS REQUIRED TO SET UP THE FUND AND PUT THE SCHEME INTO OPERATION.

THE LOTTERIES FUND HAD DECIDED IN PRINCIPLE TO SET ASIDE $1 MILLION AS A LOAN TO BE DRAWN UPON AS AND WHEN REQUIRED.

+ NO DOUBT THERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL THINK THAT THE JUXTAPOSITION OF LOTTERIES AND THE LEGAL PROCESS IS SIGNIFICANT, BUT THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SCHEME IS THAT THE LOSSES OF THE UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGANTS WILL BE MADE UP BY THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THOSE WHO ARE SUCCESSFUL. ALL BEING WELL, THERE WILL BE NO LOSERS,+ MR THOMAS SAID.

+ IT IS ESTIMATED THAT IT WILL TAKE SOME FIVE YEARS TO REPAY THE LOAN AND INTEREST AND THAT THE SCHEME SHOULD ACHIEVE AN OPERATING SURPLUS WITHIN SOME TWO YEARS.+

MR THOMAS SAID THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE SCHEME WAS A BOLD INITIATIVE WHICH PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PRINCIPAL ORDINANCE.

HE SAID HE WANTED TO DRAW ATTENTION TO FOUR POINTS:

* THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID WOULD HAVE DISCRETION TO

REFUSE LEGAL AID IF HE CONSIDERED IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO GRANT IT,

* THE LEGAL AID DEPARTMENT WOULD NO LONGER BE PRECLUDED

FROM ACTING FOR MORE THAN ONE PARTY WHEN TO DO SO WOULD UNNECESSARILY HOLD UP THE CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION,

*

*

THE BENEFITS TO AN AIDED PERSON AND THE COSTS FOR WHICH HE COULD BE LIABLE HAD BEEN CLARIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE, AND

IT HAD BEEN MADE AN OFFENCE FOR AN ASSIGNED SOLICITOR OR COUNSEL TO TAKE ADDITIONAL FEES FROM AN AIDED PERSON.

/MR THOMAS