The costs assessor had refused costs for counsel on the grounds that they were unreasonably incurred because the case was not sufficiently grave.
Held: There was nothing in the statutory language to justify the adoption of such a high test of reasonableness. The issue was not whether cheaper representation could have been obtained, but whether the representation in fact secured was reasonable.
Judge LJ, Wright J
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.416819