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 application, and on the facts there was no evidence sufficient to establish the required failure: ‘ it was a perfectly proper decision for counsel to take in this case that they would not volunteer the e-mails, particularly since the Crown knew of them and were not pressing for them, because they did not believe the prosecution would be able to prove their case. It was an entirely sensible decision in the interests of the client to put the prosecution to proof of its case and to keep the e-mails in reserve in order to advance a defence of honesty should that be necessary. Accordingly, we think that both as a matter of substance and fundamentally as a matter of procedure, that this order should not have been made.’
Judges:
Elias LJ, MacKay, Hickinbottom JJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Crim 819, [2011] 4 Costs LR 616
Links:
Statutes:
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 3C
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re A Barrister (Wasted Costs Order); Re A (No 1 of 1991) CA 1992
The section provided that the Court could order a legal practitioner to pay ‘wasted costs’, which were defined as costs incurred by a party ‘as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative’. . .
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449730