Football Association Premier League v Lord Chancellor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | O'Farrell J |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1001 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: QA-2020-000191 |
| Date | 21 April 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 1001 (QB)
Lord Justice Dingemans
Mr Justice Nicol
Mrs Justice O'Farrell
Case Nos: QA-2020-000191
QA-2020-000192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Nicholas Bacon QC and Dominic Donoghue (instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP and Hickman Rose) for the Appellants
Richard Clarke (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Respondent
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
O'Farrell J giving the judgment of the Court:
In the judgment handed down remotely on 30 March 2021 (neutral citation [2021] EWHC 755 (QB)), the Court allowed the appellants' appeal on costs and remitted the case to the costs judge to determine recoverability of the pre-commencement costs and expenses incurred by private prosecutors from central funds pursuant to orders made under section 17(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
The Court ordered that the respondent should pay the appellants' costs of the appeal, such costs to be summarily assessed on paper, and gave directions for the parties to make short written submissions.
We are grateful to the parties for their written submissions.
The first appellant claims costs of £44,406.16 and the second appellant claims costs of £31,882.27. Therefore the total costs claimed by the appellants for the appeal are just over £76,000.
The pre-commencement costs forming the subject of the appeal were £87,050.33 in respect of the first appellant and £78,846.30 in respect of the second appellant, a total of £165,896.63.
Reasonableness and proportionality
The respondent submits that the totality of the claimed costs is unreasonable in amount and disproportionate to the amounts in dispute and complexity of the issue on appeal. No disclosure or new evidence of fact was required for the appeal; the preparation was limited to the appellants' notices of appeal, a joint appeal bundle, drafting of a skeleton and attendance at the remote hearing.
The appellants submit that the costs claimed are reasonable when having regard to the importance of the appeal to the parties, the novelty of the issues raised, the significant wider implications of the outcome for private prosecutions generally and the finality of the decision of this Court.
In assessing the reasonableness and proportionality of the incidence and amount of the costs incurred, the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, the value of the claim, the importance of the matter to the parties, the complexity of the issue, and the skill, time and effort spent on the appeal as set out in CPR 44.4.
We agree with the respondent that the costs are too high and disproportionate to the sums in issue, amounting to approximately 50% of the disputed sums in the bills of costs. As I stated in paragraph 56 of the substantive judgment, the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 are intended to ensure, so far as possible, that costs proceedings do not themselves become expensive satellite proceedings following the original criminal proceedings. We do not doubt that the issue was of importance to the appellants, and of wider interest for those involved in private prosecutions, but the appeal concerned a single issue of principle that had been identified and argued in full before the costs judge below. It justified careful thought and preparation but that did not necessitate long hours spent by various members of the legal teams engaged in the same tasks. We bear this in mind when considering the detail of the statements of costs and the specific objections raised by the respondent.
Application for permission to appeal out of time
On 1 October 2020 an Appellant's Notice and Grounds of Appeal were filed in respect of the appeal by each appellant. The deadline for filing notices of appeal in each case was 25 September 2020. Therefore, the appellants sought a short extension of time for permission to appeal. On 9 November 2020 Stewart J granted permission to bring the appeal out of time.
The appellants are not entitled to recover the costs of that application from the respondent and we reduce the total costs by £4,000 to reflect that element.
Unnecessary duplication and/or excessive time spent
The respondent submits that there has been significant, unnecessary duplication in the costs claimed. The appellants dispute that there was unnecessary duplication, drawing to our attention that steps were taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patley Wood Farm LLP v Kristina Kicks
...not a line-by-line billing exercise, like detailed assessment. It involves instead a broad brush approach: see eg Football Association Premier League v The Lord Chancellor [2021] EWHC 1001 (QB), [20]. Taking account of the various points which I have made above, I consider that the applica......
-
Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake v Geoffrey William Guy
...see none. Summary assessment saves both time and money, even if it is more “broad brush” than detailed assessment ( Football Association Premier League v The Lord Chancellor [2021] EWHC 1001 (QB), [20]). I will therefore assess them 41 The Guy Parties seek the sum of £24,336. 44 solicitors......
-
Rushbrooke UK Ltd v 4 Designs Concept Ltd
...the same time, a summary assessment of costs is not a “line by line” exercise, but much more “broadbrush”: see eg Football Association Premier League v The Lord Chancellor [2021] EWHC 1001 (QB), [20]. As I have said, the total sought by the respondent is £8988, including VAT. Looking at th......
-
Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake v Geoffrey William Guy
...be a line-by-line billing exercise, like detailed assessment. It is intended to be a broad brush approach: see eg Football Association Premier League v The Lord Chancellor [2021] EWHC 1001 (QB), [20]. …” 27 Accordingly, I do not attempt to recalculate the schedules of costs, but stand back......