Khan v Lord Chancellor: QBD 17 Jan 2003

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 in defending himself to do so as litigant in person, since he could not represent himself professionally. The Regulations appeared to restrict a claim to actual costs incurred. He could not be remunerated for his own court appearances, but preparatory work was another matter. Boswell had extended the Chorley case, and his work should be recognised and rewarded. If Boswell had not so extended the rule, then this case would do so.


Mitchell J


Times 28-Jan-2003


Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(6), Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335) 7


England and Wales


CitedLondon Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley Crawford and Chester CA 30-May-1884
Where an action is brought against a solicitor who defends it in person and obtains judgment, he is entitled upon taxation to the same costs as if he had employed a solicitor, except in respect of items which the fact of his acting directly renders . .
CitedRegina v Boswell CACD 1987
The Court relied on the rule that counsel was entitled, in certain narrowly prescribed circumstances, counsel to brief another counsel to appear on his or own behalf in respect of a costs dispute, to permit counsel in those circumstances to claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.178769