R (TM Eye Ltd) v Dean Hall

Under regulation 10(14) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, costs in a successful appeal are discretionary. There is no general rule that a successful appellant recovers its costs. The court must assess what costs are reasonable in the circumstances.

A private prosecutor may recover compensation for expenses incurred, but not profit from conducting a prosecution. Where a company is represented by a qualified legal representative, it cannot generally recover both the representative’s legal costs and the time spent litigating by its own employees, subject to limited exceptions. Excessive, unreliable or unhelpful work may be disallowed.

The judgment determined the costs of two successful appeals concerning the hourly rates payable from central funds to TM Eye Ltd, a private prosecutor, under orders made pursuant to section 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. In an earlier judgment, the court increased the applicable rates.

TM Eye claimed approximately £45,052 for the appeals. The Lord Chancellor challenged the amount, relying on the limited success achieved, excessive time claimed and the inclusion of time spent by the company’s sole director. The central issues were the scope of the court’s discretion under regulation 10(14), the recoverability of employee time, and the reasonableness of the claimed work.

1. The court exercised its discretion under regulation 10(14) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986. Costs were not awarded under CPR 44, and the ordinary rule that a successful appellant receives its costs did not apply.
2. The appellant had a strong case for recovering costs because the appeals secured more appropriate rates and had wider financial significance. That did not, however, justify recovery of costs incurred on unsuccessful arguments or inadequately supported claims.
3. The statutory right of a private prosecutor is to compensation for expenses incurred, not profit from undertaking a prosecution. Applying Re Eastwood [1975] Ch 112, the reference to profit could, in this case, encompass appropriate remuneration for the company’s sole director. The point was therefore practically hypothetical.
4. As the company was represented by Mr Strickland, it could recover legal costs but not the cost of its director’s time as a litigant. The principle in Richards v Wellington (Plant Hire) Ltd v Monk & Co (1984) Costs LR Core Vol 79 applied. The director was neither legally qualified nor an expert witness, so his time was disallowed entirely.
5. The court also disallowed the professional fee for the accountant whose evidence raised credibility concerns, and excessive paralegal time spent preparing a straightforward bundle. The claimed costs were reduced to £15,000 inclusive of disbursements and excluding VAT.

The judgment followed an earlier judgment in January 2026 determining two appeals concerning the assessment of costs payable to the appellant from central funds. The present decision determined the costs of those appeals.