Sandra Krywald v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 895 (TC)
R v Dylan Whiting
30 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2724 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A law firm's legal aid claim was late because of Covid. A judge reduced the late fee from 20% to 5% because of the pandemic's impact and gave the firm extra money to cover the legal costs of the appeal.
Key Facts
- •GT Stewart Solicitors (Appellants) appealed a Legal Aid Agency (Respondent) decision applying a 20% late submission penalty to an Advocate's Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS) claim.
- •The claim was submitted 26 months after the conclusion of proceedings (September 18, 2020).
- •The 2013 Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations, as amended in 2018, require claims within three months of proceedings' conclusion (Regulation 4).
- •Regulation 31 allows time extensions for good reason and, exceptionally, with fee reductions.
- •The Respondent applied a sliding scale penalty for late submissions, modified during the Covid-19 pandemic.
- •The Appellants argued that Covid-19-related difficulties constituted good reason for the delay.
- •The Appellants are a large firm with high-volume, low-value legal aid work.
Legal Principles
Claims must be submitted within three months of proceedings' conclusion.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4
Time limits can be extended for good reason (Regulation 31(1)) or, exceptionally, despite lack of good reason, with consideration of fee reduction (Regulation 31(2)).
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Regulation 31
Outcomes
The appeal was partially successful.
The Costs Judge found that the Respondent erred in the period for which 'good reason' applied due to the Covid-19 pandemic, extending it to the end of 2021. This resulted in a shorter delay period falling within the 9-12 months bracket, necessitating a 5% penalty instead of 20%.
A 5% late submission penalty was applied instead of the original 20%.
The extended 'good reason' period, considering the firm's size and volume of work, reduced the delay period, resulting in a lower penalty.
Costs were awarded to the Appellants.
The appeal substantially succeeded.