Lloyds PR Solicitors v The Lord Chancellor

Where prosecution evidence has already been remunerated as pages of prosecution evidence, a further presentation of the same material in a different format will generally involve duplication. It should not automatically attract a further PPE allowance. The court must examine whether the different format required materially distinct consideration. A detailed explanation showing the relationship between the formats may justify treating much of the further work as duplication. Nevertheless, the importance and practical use of the rearranged material may justify a broad percentage allowance as PPE, with the balance claimed as special preparation.

The appellant solicitor appealed against the redetermination of a criminal legal aid fee claim. The claim concerned a six-day trial involving extensive electronic prosecution evidence. The determining officer ultimately allowed 5,279 pages of prosecution evidence, while the appellant sought allowance for a further 1,943 pages derived from the same source material but arranged and printed in a different format for use at trial.

The respondent accepted that the work related to served evidence and was remunerable. The issue was whether the additional consideration should be remunerated as further PPE or by way of special preparation.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The additional material required close scrutiny and was important, but it was drawn from the 5,279 pages already allowed as PPE. In light of the detailed explanatory witness statement identifying the source of the rearranged material, the additional pages largely represented duplication.
2. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 determines the pages of prosecution evidence by reference to served witness statements, exhibits and interview records, including qualifying electronic documents. The central question was not whether the source evidence was important, but how repeated consideration of that evidence in another format should be remunerated.
3. The approach in R v Baptiste (SCCO Ref 189/18) supported close scrutiny where electronic evidence already remunerated as PPE was later claimed in a consolidated or different format. A different presentation does not necessarily justify a further PPE allowance.
4. R v Everett (SC-2019-CRI-000038) was distinguished. That decision concerned evidence in two formats requiring detailed analysis and comparison. Here, the explanatory witness statement substantially supplied that comparison.
5. R v Jalibaghodelezhi ([2014] 4 Costs LR 781) did not assist because it concerned the adequacy of the electronic material allowed as PPE, rather than the remuneration of duplicated consideration in a different format.
6. A broad percentage approach was appropriate. The court allowed 20 per cent of the additional pages, amounting to 389 pages as PPE, and gave leave to claim the remaining 1,554 pages as special preparation. The respondent was ordered to pay £1,000 costs plus the court fee.

Senior Courts Costs Office: The appeal was brought against the redetermination of the appellant’s criminal legal aid fee claim. The court varied the allowance by permitting 389 additional pages as PPE and leaving the balance to a possible special preparation claim.