ABSTRACT
Inequality in the administration of the law may arise not only from the partiality of judges and juries, but from defects of a different sort. If poor men are kept from the courts by the cost of a legal action; if a rich man can force a settlement on less favourable terms than a poor opponent would get in court, by threatening to carry the case to appeal; if the former's case is put by more skilful-and more expensive-
counsel than the poor man can afford; then the formal equality in law of rich and poor is contradicted by a substantial inequality of access to justice. The Legal Aid and Advice Act has gone a long way to eliminating such inequalities, but it has created a few new ones too. A successful defendant not in receipt of aid cannot recover costs beyond what an aided plaintiff may be able to raise on his own resources. Provided that he can make out a reasonable prima facie case, the poor man can now approach the courts confident that he has little to lose; the wealthier defendant is liable to lose whether he wins or not. Removing inequalities of one sort may create others on the way.
