Southwark Law Centre, which challenged the Legal Aid Agency in this case, has welcomed a significant Court of Appeal judgment that marks an important step forward in strengthening access to justice for Windrush Compensation Scheme claimants.

In the case of R (on the application of Joyce Oji) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework [2026] EWCA Civ 11, the Court of Appeal recognised that decisions made under non-statutory government compensation schemes, such as the Windrush Compensation Scheme, are not simply discretionary “gifts” from the Crown. Instead, where the government sets clear rules and promises compensation if conditions are met, claimants may have a legal entitlement capable of amounting to a “civil right” under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This ruling challenges the long-standing blanket approach of the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), which has refused all applications for Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) for Windrush claimants on the basis that the Compensation Scheme cannot involve a civil right.

Legal team

The case was led by Chris Buttler KC of Matrix Chambers, with Grace Brown and Alex Schmyck of Garden Court Chambers acting as junior counsel. The case was instructed by Van Ferguson, solicitor at Southwark Law Centre.

What the Court decided

Although the Court ultimately found against the claimant on the specific facts of the case, it delivered a significant and far-reaching judgment on a point of wider public importance.

In a detailed and persuasive judgment delivered by Lord Justice Lewis, the Court confirmed that disputes under the Windrush Compensation Scheme can involve the determination of a civil right and therefore engage basic requirements of fairness and access to justice under Article 6.

The Court stated:

“It is an important point that is capable of arising in relation to this Scheme, and quite possibly, in the context of other compensation schemes… The reasoning of the judge is the only considered analysis in domestic law of whether a claim for compensation under schemes such as the present Scheme is capable of being a civil right for the purposes of Article 6. It is likely to be followed by decision-makers and, indeed, by other first instance judges.”

The Court went on to explain that where there is a genuine dispute about eligibility or entitlement, this can amount to the determination of a civil right:

“The Scheme is established by government. It sets out precise, defined conditions which, if they are met, entitles the applicant to an award of monetary compensation… Claims for compensation under such a scheme are in my view capable of constituting civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.”

What this means for Windrush claimants

As a result of this ruling, the Legal Aid Agency should no longer be able to refuse Windrush ECF applications on a categorical or blanket basis.

Instead, it must now consider applications on a case-by-case, fact-sensitive basis, including whether a claimant can effectively present their case without legal representation due to:

  • The complexity of their individual claim, and/or
  • Their particular vulnerabilities.

If the LAA continues to refuse funding, it will now be required to give detailed and specific reasons explaining why legal representation is not considered necessary in that individual case.

Wider implications beyond Windrush

This judgment has important implications not only for Windrush claimants, but also for other government-run, non-statutory compensation and redress schemes, both now and in the future.

By recognising that defined compensation schemes can give rise to legal entitlements, the Court has confirmed that claimants may be entitled to procedural fairness and meaningful access to justice where there is a genuine dispute about eligibility or the level of compensation awarded.

Southwark Law Centre anticipates that further litigation may be necessary if the LAA continues to argue that the Scheme is “simple” or that Home Office support services are sufficient to address claimants’ vulnerabilities. However, this judgment removes the fundamental legal barrier that previously excluded Windrush ECF applications from being considered at all.

Statement from Southwark Law Centre

Stacey Edgar, Executive Director of Southwark Law Centre, said:

“This judgment is a vital step forward for Windrush claimants and others seeking redress under government compensation schemes. It recognises that these are not simply discretionary ‘gifts’, but legal entitlements that engage fundamental rights. Access to legal advice and representation is essential to ensure fairness, accountability, and justice.”