Andre Agassi v S Robinson (H M Inspector of Taxes) (No 2): CA 2 Dec 2005

The taxpayer had been represented in proceedings throughout by tax law experts, Tenon Media, who were not legally admitted, but had a right to conduct litigation under the 1990 Act. The Inspector objected to paying costs as if the representatives were admitted.
Held: Someone acting through the licensed access schemes was not a litigant in person. However the guidance noted that under the scheme: ‘. . . any litigation will have to be conducted on the basis that the litigant is a litigant in person.’ Though he ws able to recover some disbursements, he was not able to recover the general profit costs of those he had employed.


Booke LJ, Dyson LJ, Carnwath LJ


[2005] EWCA Civ 1507, Times 22-Dec-2005




Solicitors Act 1974 20, Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 17, Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975


England and Wales


DistinguishedJonathan Alexander Ltd v Proctor CA 19-Dec-1995
A company represented in proceedings by a director is not a litigant in person, and therefore has no expenses or costs claimable from the other party.
Hirst LJ said: ‘. . the ordinary meaning, as I understand it, of the description ‘litigant . .
See AlsoAgassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) CA 19-Nov-2004
. .
CitedGregory and Gregory v Turner, Turner; Regina (Morris) v North Somerset Council CA 19-Feb-2003
The parties were involved in a boundary dispute. One granted an enduring power of attorney, and sought to appear as a litigant in person through the power.
Held: The right of a litigant in person to represent himself was a personal right, and . .
CitedThe Law Society of the United Kingdom v Waterlow Brothers and Layton HL 1883
There was a claim that there had been a breach of section 2 of the 1843 Act by law stationers (who had had various dealings with the Probate registry under the supervision of solicitors). The Rules of the Probate Court required applications for . .
CitedIn re Ainsworth, ex parte the Law Society 1905
An unqualified person who gives notice of appearance is thereby acting in contravention of section 2 of the 1843 Act. The relevant rule of court required a notice of appearance to be given either by the defendant himself or his solicitor. . .

Cited by:

Se AlsoAgassi v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes HL 17-May-2006
The tax payer played tennis and was paid sums for when he played in England. The sums were paid to his overseas based company.
Held: The revenue’s appeal succeeded. The ‘legislative intendment in relation to sections 555 and 556, and their . .
mentionedPrudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235535