Patel, Re Defendant’s Cost Order: CACD 6 Jul 2012

The defendant had been granted a defendant costs order, but he had not complied with the Rules by first outlining the type of costs and amount claimed’ and the Court had not required compliance. He had successfully appealed against a conviction for supplying counterfeit Viagra. The proceedings had been very complex and protracted and his solicitors had claimed over andpound;3m pounds. It was later discovered that there had been an oral agreement capping his liability for profit costs, but a deed purported to vary that as invalid.
Held: The court rejected the argument that it had no jurisdiction to re-open the defendant’s costs application in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The solicitors should have disclosed the facts to the court. The costs order was confirmed, but the Registrar was to make such further enquiries as he felt appropriate.
Hooper, Tomlinson LJJ, Swift J
[2012] EWCA Crim 1508
Criminal Practice Rules 76.4(4)(b)
England and Wales
CitedTaylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
CitedKenneth L Kellar Carib West Limited v Stanley A Williams PC 24-Jun-2004
(Turks and Caicos Islands) The appellant had failed in his action but argued that he should not be called upon to pay the costs of the respondent because there had been an unlawful conditional fee agreement. The bill had referred to one factor as . .
CitedRegina v Shiraj Patel CACD 2009
The court considered the powers available to it where leave to appeal to it appeared to have been obtained by deception. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.462294