Lord Chancellor v Rees & Ors

Lord Chancellor v Rees & Ors

It is legitimate for Determining Officers to use comparators such as VHCC rates, prosecution fees, and GFS as cross-checks in assessing ex post facto fees for criminal defence counsel, but these comparators are not determinative and must be applied with care. Lost work cannot be separately compensated, and there is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: The Lord Chancellor; Respondents: John Charles Rees QC and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Judge to High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Counsel's Fees, Ex Post Facto Costs, Use of Comparators in Costs Assessment, Legitimate Expectation, Lost Work in Costs Assessment
Criminal Law Costs and Legal Aid Assessment of Counsel's Fees Ex Post Facto Costs Use of Comparators in Costs Assessment Legitimate Expectation Lost Work in Costs Assessment

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Lord Chancellor

Appellant

John Charles Rees QC and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Judge to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Determining Officers may use comparators (VHCC rates, prosecution fees, GFS) as cross-checks in assessing ex post facto fees for criminal defence counsel
  2. 2 Whether lost work can be compensated as a separate item in costs assessment
  3. 3 Whether legitimate expectation doctrine applies to changes in costs assessment practice

Ratio Decidendi

It is legitimate for Determining Officers to use comparators such as VHCC rates, prosecution fees, and GFS as cross-checks in assessing ex post facto fees for criminal defence counsel, but these comparators are not determinative and must be applied with care. Lost work cannot be separately compensated, and there is no legitimate expectation preventing the use of comparators as cross-checks. The Costs Judge erred by excluding comparators from consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • All assessments remitted to a Costs Judge for redetermination of appropriate fees payable in each case.