Stacy v Player

Stacy v Player

The deputy judge erred in concluding that a breach of regulation 64 and the involvement of a third party funder precluded a costs order in favour of Mr Stacy. The normal order for costs should have been made, with costs to be assessed under the legal aid regime and paid to the Legal Aid Board. The breach of regulation 64 did not justify refusing the costs order.

Parties
Appellant: Mr P Stacy; Respondent: Dr P V Player
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (costs Order)
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Legal Aid, Third Party Funding, Discretion in Costs Orders

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr P Stacy

Appellant

Dr P V Player

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (costs Order)

  1. 1 Whether the deputy judge erred in refusing to award costs to Mr Stacy due to third party funding and breach of legal aid regulations
  2. 2 Whether a breach of regulation 64 of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 precludes a costs order in favour of a legally aided party

Ratio Decidendi

The deputy judge erred in concluding that a breach of regulation 64 and the involvement of a third party funder precluded a costs order in favour of Mr Stacy. The normal order for costs should have been made, with costs to be assessed under the legal aid regime and paid to the Legal Aid Board. The breach of regulation 64 did not justify refusing the costs order.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Deputy judge’s order as to costs set aside
  • Order substituted that Dr Player pays Mr Stacy’s costs of the preliminary issue, such costs to be the subject of a legal aid taxation