Fuseon Ltd v Senior Courts Costs Office

Fuseon Ltd v Senior Courts Costs Office

The Costs Judge erred in law by applying the wrong test for reasonableness—focusing on whether local practitioners could have conducted the prosecution rather than whether the claimant acted reasonably in instructing EMM. The Singh reduction was wrongly applied by using CPS rates as a comparator, contrary to statutory and case law requiring assessment by reference to the prevailing private market. These errors caused substantial prejudice and risked undermining the constitutional role of private prosecutions, constituting real injustice warranting High Court intervention.

Parties
Claimant: Fuseon Limited; First Defendant: Senior Courts Costs Office; Second Defendant: The Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Appeal / High Court Review of Costs Judge Decision
Outcome
Substantive decision of the Costs Judge and refusal to certify quashed; matter remitted to the first defendant for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Private Prosecution, Costs Recovery, Singh Reduction, Reasonableness of Legal Costs, Inherent Jurisdiction, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
Criminal Law Costs Law Judicial Review Private Prosecution Costs Recovery Singh Reduction Reasonableness of Legal Costs Inherent Jurisdiction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fuseon Limited

Claimant

Senior Courts Costs Office

First Defendant

The Lord Chancellor

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Appeal / High Court Review of Costs Judge Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Costs Judge erred in law in upholding the designated officer's decision on regional rates and Singh reduction for private prosecution costs
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to certify a point of principle of general importance constituted a real injustice warranting High Court intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The Costs Judge erred in law by applying the wrong test for reasonableness—focusing on whether local practitioners could have conducted the prosecution rather than whether the claimant acted reasonably in instructing EMM. The Singh reduction was wrongly applied by using CPS rates as a comparator, contrary to statutory and case law requiring assessment by reference to the prevailing private market. These errors caused substantial prejudice and risked undermining the constitutional role of private prosecutions, constituting real injustice warranting High Court intervention.

Court Disposition

Substantive decision of the Costs Judge and refusal to certify quashed; matter remitted to the first defendant for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Quash the Costs Judge's substantive decision and refusal to certify a point of principle of general importance.
  • Remit the matter to the Senior Courts Costs Office for reconsideration in light of this judgment.