Wulfsohn, R (on the application of) v Legal Services Commission

Under the Civil Procedure Rules, rule 48.6(4), a litigant in person who cannot prove financial loss may recover costs for the time reasonably spent on each item of work, at the rate specified in the costs practice direction. The relevant measure is reasonable time, not the claimant’s total actual time. The complexity of the work remains relevant. Permission may be granted to review a costs assessment, including disbursements, where a litigant in person may have agreed figures during a rushed hearing.

Collins J quashed the Legal Services Commission’s decision to revoke legal aid issued to Mr Wulfsohn for defending possession proceedings and assessed his costs at £120. Mr Wulfsohn, acting in person, sought permission to appeal that assessment. He argued that the assessment failed to apply rule 48.6(4) and understated his travel and photocopying disbursements. The central issue was whether the costs assessment required review.

The application for permission to appeal was granted. The appeal could be constituted by two judges, one of whom could be a High Court judge.

1. Rule 48.6(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules applies subject to paragraph (2). Where a litigant in person fails to prove financial loss, the amount allowed for each item of work is based on the time reasonably spent doing that work, at the rate specified in the costs practice direction. The absence of proved lost earnings does not remove the entitlement to an allowance.

2. The relevant measure is reasonable time, rather than all the time actually spent. Mr Wulfsohn accepted that his claimed 1,200 hours greatly exceeded the time that a legally qualified person would reasonably have spent. Nevertheless, the applications were not straightforward, and the reasonable time could properly amount to a considerable number of hours. The assessment therefore required review by the full court.

3. Although the transcript suggested that Mr Wulfsohn had agreed the figures for travel and photocopying, he said that the discussion had occurred in a rush because the judge wished to leave. Given that he was a litigant in person and had obtained permission on the principal issue, the Court did not preclude him from challenging all aspects of the assessment.

4. The Court indicated that the dispute should preferably be resolved without a Court of Appeal hearing, including by a reasonable compromise with the Legal Services Commission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal the costs assessment was granted, with permission to challenge all aspects of the assessment.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: On 7 June 2001, Collins J quashed the Legal Services Commission’s decision to revoke the legal aid certificate and assessed costs at £120.