R v Bhadresh Gohil
[2022] EWHC 3111 (SCCO)
Argyn Khassenov, R (on the application of) v Kulich and Kulich
9 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 2845 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A private prosecutor appealed a cost reduction in his successful fraud case. The judge said the person who reduced his fees didn't explain their decision clearly enough, so they have to redo it and explain it better.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by Mr. Khassenov, a private prosecutor, against the assessment of his costs under a prosecution costs order.
- •£209,197.51 initially claimed, reduced to £122,896.26 by the Determining Officer.
- •Appeal concerned disallowed costs related to a disclosure platform and a 'Singh discount' applied to solicitor's fees.
- •The Determining Officer's reasoning was deemed insufficiently detailed by the Costs Judge.
- •The case involved a successful private prosecution following a complex multinational fraud.
- •The appeal focused on three grounds: incorrect application of the Singh discount, improper comparison with another case (O'Reilly), and wrongful disallowance of various cost items.
Legal Principles
Court may order payment from central funds of an amount reasonably sufficient to compensate the prosecutor for expenses properly incurred.
Section 17, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
Determining Officer can take an overall view and reduce hours for each class of work if the aggregate time claimed is unreasonable, after a line-by-line audit. The reduction must be reasoned and explained.
R v Supreme Court Taxing Office ex parte John Singh & Co [1997] 1 Costs LR 49; Fuseon Ltd v Senior Courts Costs Office and Another [2020] Costs L.R. 251; Demouilpied v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220
Compensation is reasonably sufficient if it is the amount reasonably incurred for work properly undertaken.
R (The Law Society of England and Wales) v The Lord Chancellor [2010] EWHC 1406 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal partially allowed.
The Singh discount was not properly applied due to lack of clarity on the breakdown of reductions (audit phase vs. Singh discount). The comparison to the O'Reilly case requires further investigation. The disallowance of specific cost items needs further examination.
Remittal to the Determining Officer.
To provide a detailed breakdown of cost reductions during the audit phase and the application of the Singh discount.