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.
Parties
Mr P Stacy
Appellant
Dr P V Player
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (costs Order)
Legal Issues
- 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 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment