The defendant sought to recover the cost of employing leading counsel to defend him in the magistrates court after succeeding. The magistrates had disallowed the costs of leading counsel.
Held: The fact that the defendant could have obtained the same services at a much lower price than that average elsewhere is irrelevant. Pill LJ described the first test to be applied by the costs clerk on the taxation of costs in the magistrates court: ‘In order to fulfil the requirements of stage one he has to ask himself, first of all, whether the expenses are ones which are properly incurred by the defendant.’
Woolf LJ said that in seeking to apply the statute and the Regulations the clerk to the justices had asked himself the wrong question. He asked himself if a junior counsel or a senior solicitor could reasonably have conducted the case on behalf of the applicants, and answered that question in the affirmative. What he should have asked himself was ‘whether the applicant acted reasonably in employing leading counsel’. If the answer to that question was in the affirmative then the expenses were properly incurred for the purposes of section 16.
He continued: ‘Having regard to the nature of the case, which I have already described, it is quite impossible for it to be said that the defendants were acting improperly in instructing leading counsel.’ and ‘I would content myself by making an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the justices’ clerk, being confident that when the justices’ clerk reconsiders the matter, as he is required to do, and reassesses what are the proper expenses to be paid, he will approach the matter in the way indicated in the judgment which I have just given. In other words he will come to the conclusion in this case, which is the only conclusion which I would regard as being proper, that it was reasonable to engage leading counsel and merely confine himself to considering what fees are properly recoverable in respect of the instruction of leading counsel.’
Judges:
Pill LJ, Woolf LJ
Citations:
[1990] JP 654
Statutes:
Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 16(6) 16(7)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Law Society of England and Wales, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 15-Jun-2010
Costs restriction not made under Act
The respondent had introduced rules which restricted the levels of costs which might be awarded from central funds to a successful defendant in a criminal trial who had take private representation. The amendment was made under powers in the 1985 . .
Cited – Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust v Acres QBD 22-Mar-2013
The defendant challenged the use by the claimant of solicitors from Central London in her claim for personal injury. She was a radiographer, and her work involved exposure to dangerous materials, though in this case it arose from use of machinery . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Magistrates
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.416820