Holden & Co -v- Crown Prosecution Service (No 2); Steel Ford & Newton -v- Crown Prosecution Service and Another (No 2); HL 14 Jul 1993

References: Gazette 14-Jul-1993, [1994] 1 AC 22
Coram: Lord Bridge
The Court of Appeal had set aside wasted costs orders made in the Crown Court against four different firms of solicitors.
Held: The House set aside the orders but was unable to award to the firms their costs of the successful appeals. There is no provision to order costs from Central funds on appeals against costs orders in criminal cases. It was just for a successful litigant, and perhaps a fortiori a successful appellant, to be able to recover his costs from someone, but it was not always so: ‘it is relatively commonplace for a party who is the victim of a misjudgment by an inferior court or tribunal to have to seek relief by an application for judicial review in circumstances where the Divisional Court cannot hold another party or the inferior tribunal itself liable in costs and there is no power to award costs from public funds.’
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Holden & Co -v- Crown Prosecution Service (No 2); Similar Cases CA (Gazette 08-Jan-92, [1992] 1 WLR 407)
    The Civil Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to award Costs from central funds and they should be made in favour of successful applicants against wasted costs orders in criminal proceedings. . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina -v- Moore CACD (Times 15-May-03, Gazette 03-Jul-03)
    The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court, but succeeded on appeal. Costs had been ordered in his favour, but the matter had been referred back to the court to consider the extent of its powers on such an occasion.
    Held: The making . .
  • Cited – Regina on the Application of Christine Davies (No 2) -v- HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 207, Times 10-Mar-04, [2004] 3 All ER 543, [2004] 4 Costs LR 545, [2004] 1 WLR 2739, [2004] Inquest LR 96, (2004) 80 BMLR 48)
    The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
    Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .

Leave a Reply