The court considered the words ‘in the proceedings’ in Regulation 7 of the 1986 Regulations. One issue was whether claims for attendance on the claimant prior to charge are for expenses incurred by the claimant ‘in the proceedings’. The court . .
The applicant was a barrister. He had been tried and acquitted of criminal charges, and had been awarded cost from central funds. He appealed from a refusal of a claim for payment for the time he spent in preparation. Held: The applicant was bound by the Bar’s Code of Conduct, which would have required him … Continue reading Khan v Lord Chancellor: QBD 17 Jan 2003
A Justices’ clerk may not require a claimant to show exceptional circumstances before taxing a bill delivered late. Citations: Times 06-Feb-1995 Statutes: Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 12(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Practice Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87448
A magistrate has an obligation to allow the side against whom a costs order is made to see the basis of the bill, but in absence of a request could proceed. Citations: Times 19-Aug-1997 Statutes: Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335) Criminal Practice Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81569
Application by the Crown Prosecution Service for judicial review seeking an order quashing a costs order made against it and made under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (the 1985 Act) and the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulation 1986 (the Regulations). Judges: Sharp LJ, Julian Knowles j Citations: [2017] EWHC 2987 … Continue reading Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Aylesbury Crown Court and Another: Admn 24 Nov 2017
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was cancelled when he lost his home. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The disabilty premium, as part of … Continue reading RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 22 Oct 2008
Virgin had successfully taken a private prosecution against the defendants for copyright infringement. They sought an order for their costs to be paid from central funds. On taking confiscation proceedings, costs were now sought against the defendants. The court was asked what rates should apply. Sir John Thomas LCJ, Raffrty LJ, Holroyde J [2014] EWCA … Continue reading Virgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga: CACD 11 Sep 2014
The defendant had been acquitted. Orders had been made both for payment of his legal costs, and also for re-imbursement of his own costs. The defendant was accused of serious fraud, and had engaged an American attorney to assist him before . .
The solicitors appealed against a wasted costs order. On the morning of the trial, they had produced further evidence leading to the collapse of the trial.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The solicitors had not been given notice of the . .
The appellant challenged an order to pay over andpound;18,000 costs after losing her complaint of statutory nuisance against the Parish Council. She had complained as to the noise coming from a playground.
Held: She had brought the proceedings . .
Claim for judicial review in which the claimant challenges an order made in the Crown Court which required him to pay the costs incurred by the Interested Parties in a private criminal prosecution for blackmail brought against them by the claimant. . .
. .
. .
. .
HMCE appealed by case stated from an order for costs made against it. It had applied for orders for access to three banks and a public limited company. On the orders being made, the court allowed costs against HMCE for the third parties involved, . .
The defendant applied for its costs. It had been convicted for a breach of the Regulations, but the Inspector had not had the power to make the request it had denied.
Held: ‘The present case is one in which the prosecution failed as a matter . .
Negligence on the part of a solicitor was capable of falling within the range of ‘unnecessary or improper act or omission’ so as to leave him open to a wasted costs order. A clerk, having stood near the place where the jury assembled, discussed the . .
