R v Nelson (2022) EWHC 2928 (SCCO): Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 21:51, 19 January 2023

Costs The barrister appealed the determining officer's decision on his fees for a complex mental health criminal appeal. He had claimed £4,350 for c.20 hours work prior to the leave to appeal hearing and £7,500 for a subsequent 32 hours' work. The determining officer had only allowed an attendance-only fee of £150 for the hearing, and a brief fee of £4,000 for the subsequent work. The costs judge disagreed with the determining officer's interpretation and application of the court orders, partly because it was contrary to the provisions of the 2013 Regulations and partly because it is consistent with established principles of interpretation, and allowed him £3,250 and £6,000 respectively. (The barrister had already lost money on his 43-page Advice and Grounds when his instructing solicitors became insolvent.)

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Miscellaneous cases🔍

Date: 15 November 2022🔍

Court: Senior Courts Cost Office🔍

Judicial history:

R v Nelson [2022] EWHC 2928 (SCCO) (costs)
R v Nelson [2020] EWCA Crim 1615 (the appeal)

Judge(s):

Leonard🔍

Parties:

R🔍
Nelson🔍
Philip Rule🔍

Citation number(s):

[2022] EWHC 2928 (SCCO)^B

What links here:

R v Nelson [2020] EWCA Crim 1615

Published: 4/12/22 12:26

Cached: 2025-07-16 04:01:03

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 |Judicial history first case=R v Nelson (2020) EWCA Crim 1615
 |Sentence=Costs
-|Summary=The barrister appealed the determining officer's decision on his fees for a complex mental health criminal appeal. He had claimed £4,350 for c.20 hours work prior to the leave to appeal hearing and £7,500 for a subsequent 32 hours' work. The determining officer had only allowed an attendance-only fee of £150 for the hearing, and a brief fee of £4,000 for the subsequent work. The costs judge disagreed with the determining officer's interpretation and application of the court orders, partly because it was contrary to the provisions of the 2013 Regulations and partly because it is consistent with established principles of interpretation, and awarded him £3,250 and £6,000 respectively. (The barrister had already lost money on his 43 page Advice and Grounds when his instructing solicitors became insolvent.)
+|Summary=The barrister appealed the determining officer's decision on his fees for a complex mental health criminal appeal. He had claimed £4,350 for c.20 hours work prior to the leave to appeal hearing and £7,500 for a subsequent 32 hours' work. The determining officer had only allowed an attendance-only fee of £150 for the hearing, and a brief fee of £4,000 for the subsequent work. The costs judge disagreed with the determining officer's interpretation and application of the court orders, partly because it was contrary to the provisions of the 2013 Regulations and partly because it is consistent with established principles of interpretation, and allowed him £3,250 and £6,000 respectively. (The barrister had already lost money on his 43-page Advice and Grounds when his instructing solicitors became insolvent.)
 |Subject=Miscellaneous cases
 |News=Yes
 |RSS pubdate=2022/12/04 12:13:15 PM
 }}