A2 Solicitors v The Lord Chancellor

Where an appeal succeeds only in part, the costs award should reflect both the successful and unsuccessful issues. The court may award a contribution where the respondent initially denied any liability and the appellant ultimately recovered something. The award may nevertheless be reduced where the appellant failed on its primary claim and maintained that claim despite submissions clarifying the position.

A2 Solicitors appealed against a costs decision in proceedings concerning criminal legal aid remuneration in R v Brissett. The appeal, brought under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and Regulation 10 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, succeeded only in part. The court then determined the appropriate costs payable by the Lord Chancellor, taking account of the parties’ respective success and conduct.

1. The appeal succeeded only in part. The appellant failed on its primary claim, although it obtained some recovery.
2. The Respondent was liable to pay some costs. Relevant considerations included the Respondent’s initial denial that any fees were payable and the fact that the appellant had ultimately received something.
3. The costs award had to reflect the appellant’s limited success. The appellant had maintained its primary claim throughout the proceedings, including after submissions which, in the judge’s view, made the position on that claim clear.
4. Costs were awarded to the appellant in the sum of £700, inclusive of the appeal lodging fee and a proportion of the time spent preparing the appeal, attending the first hearing and considering the Respondent’s submissions.

The judgment records an appeal under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and Regulation 10 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986. The decision under appeal is not otherwise identified by citation.