View source for Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor (2015) EWCA Civ 1193, (2015) MHLO 136

''The proposed Legal Aid residence test was lawful (the High Court had been wrong to decide it to be ultra vires and unjustifiably discriminatory). The proposed test is described as follows in the judgment: "To satisfy the residence test, an individual would have to be lawfully resident in the UK, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or a British Overseas Territory on the day the application for civil legal services was made, and (unless they were under 12 months old or a particular kind of asylum claimant or involved with the UK Armed Forces) have been so lawfully resident for a 12 month period at some time in the past (excluding absences of up to 30 days). There were proposed exceptions to the test. Claimants pursuing certain types of proceedings were not required to satisfy the test (for example, domestic violence cases, and challenges to the lawfulness of detention). In any event, regardless of residence, a claimant who failed the residence test would have been entitled to apply for legal aid under the Exceptional Case Funding regime in s.10 of [[LASPO]] whose purpose is to ensure that all those who have a right to legal aid under the ECHR or EU law are able to obtain it."

==Related judgments==
{{related judgments|R (Public Law Project) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 2365 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 46}}

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor (2015) EWCA Civ 1193, (2015) MHLO 136}}

==External links==
{{#bailii:(2015) EWCA Civ 1193}}

{{link|http://legalaidhandbook.com/2016/01/20/of-residence-reviews-and-reverses/|Simon Pugh, 'Of residence, reviews and reverses' (Legal Aid Handbook blog, 20/1/16)|s}}. The government aims to introduce the civil Legal Aid residence test by summer 2016.

[[Category:Miscellaneous cases]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2015 cases]]