Fuseon Ltd v Senior Courts Costs Office [2020] EWHC 126 (Admin) (28 January 2020)

Fuseon Ltd v Senior Courts Costs Office [2020] EWHC 126 (Admin) (28 January 2020)

The Costs Judge did not err in law in upholding the delegated officer's decision to disallow London charging rates and travel expenses, nor in applying the Singh reduction by reference to CPS costs. The claimant failed to demonstrate a 'real injustice' justifying the High Court's intervention under its inherent jurisdiction. The approach taken was consistent with established legal principles regarding reasonableness and proportionality in the assessment of costs for private prosecutions.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 126 (Admin)
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 / Administrative Law / High Court Judgment on Application to Exercise Inherent Jurisdiction to Quash Refusal to Certify Point of Principle for Appeal
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Private Prosecution Costs, Assessment of Costs, Judicial Review, Inherent Jurisdiction, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Reasonableness of Legal Costs, Singh Reduction, Proportionality in Costs
Criminal Law Costs and Litigation Funding Administrative Law Private Prosecution Costs Assessment of Costs Judicial Review Inherent Jurisdiction Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 +3 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fuseon Limited

Claimant

Senior Courts Costs Office

First Defendant

The Lord Chancellor

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Administrative Law / High Court Judgment on Application to Exercise Inherent Jurisdiction to Quash Refusal to Certify Point of Principle for Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Costs Judge erred in law in upholding the delegated officer's decision to disallow London charging rates and travel expenses for a private prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the application of the 'Singh reduction' by reference to CPS costs was lawful
  3. 3 Whether there was a 'real injustice' justifying the High Court's intervention under its inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Costs Judge did not err in law in upholding the delegated officer's decision to disallow London charging rates and travel expenses, nor in applying the Singh reduction by reference to CPS costs. The claimant failed to demonstrate a 'real injustice' justifying the High Court's intervention under its inherent jurisdiction. The approach taken was consistent with established legal principles regarding reasonableness and proportionality in the assessment of costs for private prosecutions.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash refusal to certify point of principle is refused
  • No order for further costs or directions