View source for R (Public Law Project) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 2365 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 46

''The proposed legal aid 'residence test' was unlawful: (1) the statutory instrument containing it was ultra vires and unlawful, as [[LASPO]] did not permit such a criterion to be introduced by secondary legislation; (2) residence is not a lawful ground for discriminating between those who would otherwise be eligible for legal assistance by virtue of Schedule 1 LASPO.'' 

==Related judgments==
[[Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor (2015) EWCA Civ 1193, (2015) MHLO 136]]
*[[R (Public Law Project) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 2365 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 46]]
==ICLR==
{{ICLR|R (Public Law Project) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 2365 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 46}}

==External links==
{{#bailii:(2014) EWHC 2365 (Admin)}}

[http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?docID=WLRD2014-316 ICLR]

[http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/newslatest-updates/civil-news/update-on-civil-legal-aid-residence-test Legal Aid Agency, 'Update on civil legal aid residence test' (17/7/14)]†. The Ministry of Justice will appeal the High Court decision on the residence test, which will not be introduced as planned on 4/8/14.

[http://legalaidhandbook.com/2014/06/17/can-you-prove-it/ Simon Pugh, 'Can you prove it?' (Legal Aid Handbook blog, 17/6/14)]. This article refers to the draft residence test regulations.

[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0255.html Supreme Court website]. "Following a hearing at which the Court heard argument on the ultra vires issue and indicated that it did not need to hear argument on the discrimination issue, the Supreme Court unanimously allows the Public Law Project’s appeal on the ultra vires issue. Lord Neuberger gives the only judgment, with which the other Justices agree." [Need to add new case page.]

[[Category:Miscellaneous cases]]
[[Category:Detailed summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2014 cases]]