Doctor David William Reeves v Jennifer Carol Pickton & Ors

A litigant in person may recover consultancy costs as a disbursement only where the work is of a kind that a solicitor or other authorised legal representative would not normally undertake. Specialist or expert assistance may qualify. General litigation support, correspondence, attendance, and assistance with pleadings or witness statements ordinarily do not. The recoverability question is assessed by asking whether the expenditure would have been recoverable as a solicitor’s disbursement. The court must examine the actual work performed and any specialist expertise supplied.

The petitioner had succeeded in section 994 proceedings and was awarded his costs. He had acted as a litigant in person, but claimed substantial fees charged by Berkeley Domecq, a business consultancy directed by a retired solicitor. The consultancy had assisted with correspondence, an extraordinary general meeting, court attendance, conferences with counsel, witness statements, and pleadings. The issue was whether those fees were recoverable under the costs order and CPR 46.5.

1. Applicable principles. CPR 46.5 permits a litigant in person to recover the same categories of work and disbursements that would have been allowed if undertaken by a legal representative. It also permits reasonably made payments for legal services and the costs of obtaining expert assistance in assessing the costs claim.
2. The governing authority was Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (No. 2) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507. Costs of work which a legal representative would normally have done personally are not recoverable as a disbursement. There remains scope for specialist or expert assistance, particularly in an esoteric field, where the work would not normally be undertaken by the solicitor. Such work might be recoverable as a solicitor’s disbursement and, in principle, by a litigant in person under CPR 46.5.
3. Octoesse LLP v Trak Special Projects Ltd [2016] 6 Costs L.R. 1187 provided a helpful summary of those principles. The broader analysis in NAP Anglia Ltd v Sun-Land Development Co Ltd [2012] EWHC 51 (TCC), to the extent that it suggested that the nature of work commonly undertaken by solicitors did not matter, was too broadly stated. In light of Agassi, that distinction mattered.
4. Nothing done by Berkeley Domecq was shown to involve expertise outside the armoury of solicitors who deal with section 994 petitions. Its work was substantial and helpful, but it consisted of general litigation support rather than recoverable specialist assistance. The fees and expenses were therefore not recoverable from the first respondent under the costs order.
5. The petitioner was unsuccessful on this discrete issue. No further costs were awarded to him, particularly as the fees had been incorrectly presented in the bill as solicitors’ fees rather than, if recoverable, as disbursements.