R v Stephen Hart & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2926 (SCCO)
R v Bhadresh Gohil
24 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 3111 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A law firm appealed a decision on how much they should be paid for work on a complicated legal case. The judge said the person who decided the payment didn't follow the right rules and should have checked each part of the bill more carefully before reducing the total amount. The law firm won and got paid the full amount they asked for.
Key Facts
- •Imran Khan & Partners appealed against the sums allowed by the determining officer for confiscation proceedings under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The appellant represented Mr. Bhadresh Gohil, a solicitor involved in money laundering and prejudicing an investigation related to James Ibori.
- •The confiscation proceedings were exceptionally lengthy and complex, involving extensive documentation (225 appendices to the defendant's Section 17 statement).
- •The appeal focused on the time claimed for reviewing documents from the defendant and the Ibori confiscation bundle, and the grade of fee earners.
- •The determining officer allowed a significantly lower amount than claimed, applying a 'Singh discount' and considering only a sample of the documents.
- •The appellant argued the determining officer failed to properly assess each individual item before applying the overall discount.
Legal Principles
Determining officers must assess each individual item of a cost claim before considering the overall reasonableness of the aggregate sum (the 'audit stage'). A 'stepping back' to consider the overall reasonableness is a second stage, permissible after the audit stage.
R v Supreme Court Taxing Office ex parte John Singh & Co [1997] 1 Costs LR 49
Determining officers may use a sampling approach to assess a large number of similar items, but the methodology must be clearly explained and justified.
R v Waite (SC-2020-CRI-000094)
The Criminal Bills Assessment Manual's 'rough guide' of two minutes per page is not a strict calculation method for determining reasonable time spent.
Criminal Bills Assessment Manual
Outcomes
The appeal was successful.
The determining officer failed to adequately conduct the 'audit stage' required by Singh before applying a broader assessment. The judge found the solicitor's explanation for the time spent reviewing documents more compelling and the sampling method insufficiently justified.
The time claimed for reviewing both sets of documents (documents from the defendant and the Ibori confiscation bundle) was allowed in full.
The complexity of the case and the interrelationship of the documents justified the time spent. The judge found the determining officer's assessment of relevance flawed and insufficiently justified.
The determining officer's assessment of fee earner grades was upheld.
The judge found no evidence that the determining officer's decision was influenced by the fee earner with conduct's grade, and the assessment of the work done by other fee earners was appropriate based on the nature of the work.