R. v SVS Solicitors

R. v SVS Solicitors

The appellant solicitors' failure to serve a compliant cross-application or disclose grounds for opposing the hearsay notice, and their continued representation of the client in breach of CPR 34.3(2), constituted improper, unreasonable, and negligent conduct. This breach caused the wasted costs of bringing the witness from Australia. The wasted costs order was justified and not a mere error of judgment.

Parties
Appellant: SVS Solicitors; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Wasted Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Orders, Professional Conduct, Criminal Procedure, Hearsay Evidence

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

Parties

SVS Solicitors

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Wasted Costs Order

  1. 1 Whether the appellant solicitors acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently in opposing a hearsay notice without disclosing grounds and requiring a witness to attend from Australia, thereby incurring wasted costs
  2. 2 Whether the wasted costs order was justified under section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and relevant Practice Directions

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant solicitors' failure to serve a compliant cross-application or disclose grounds for opposing the hearsay notice, and their continued representation of the client in breach of CPR 34.3(2), constituted improper, unreasonable, and negligent conduct. This breach caused the wasted costs of bringing the witness from Australia. The wasted costs order was justified and not a mere error of judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Wasted costs order against SVS Solicitors in the sum of £3,042.50 upheld