The Lord Chancellor v Ahmed

The Lord Chancellor v Ahmed

Where an indictment can be interpreted as charging an offence under both section 170(1)(b) and section 170(2) of the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, and both classes are equally viable under the Funding Order, the advocate is entitled to elect the class for remuneration. The paying authority cannot override this choice unless the claim is clearly made under the wrong class.

Parties
Claimant: The Lord Chancellor; Defendant: Ahmed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme, Classification of Offences for Remuneration, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions
Criminal Law Costs Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme Classification of Offences for Remuneration Interpretation of Statutory Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Lord Chancellor

Claimant

Ahmed

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Costs Judge erred in classifying the offence for fee purposes under Class K rather than Class B under the Funding Order
  2. 2 Whether the advocate or the taxing authority has the right to elect the applicable class when an offence could fall under more than one class

Ratio Decidendi

Where an indictment can be interpreted as charging an offence under both section 170(1)(b) and section 170(2) of the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, and both classes are equally viable under the Funding Order, the advocate is entitled to elect the class for remuneration. The paying authority cannot override this choice unless the claim is clearly made under the wrong class.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed