The Lord Chancellor v Alexander Johnson & Co Solicitors & Anor [2011] EWHC 2113 (QB) (29 July 2011)

The Lord Chancellor v Alexander Johnson & Co Solicitors & Anor [2011] EWHC 2113 (QB) (29 July 2011)

Paragraph 10(6) of Schedule 2 to the 2007 Funding (Amendment) Order must be read in the context of the legislative scheme, which provides that once a case is classified as a VHCC, the GFS does not apply to VHCC panel members, even if the representation order is withdrawn. The Costs Judge was wrong to allow GFS fees in these circumstances. The correct interpretation is that VHCC panel members are only entitled to VHCC remuneration after classification, regardless of withdrawal.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2113
Parties
Appellant: The Lord Chancellor; First Respondent: Alexander Johnson & Co. Solicitors; Second Respondent: Mr Martin McCarthy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Full Argument
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Litigators' Graduated Fee Scheme (gfs), Very High Costs Cases (vhcc), Interpretation of Criminal Defence Services (funding) Order 2007, Remuneration of Legal Representatives, Withdrawal and Transfer of Representation Orders
Criminal Law Legal Aid Costs Litigators' Graduated Fee Scheme (gfs) Very High Costs Cases (vhcc) Interpretation of Criminal Defence Services (funding) Order 2007 Remuneration of Legal Representatives Withdrawal and Transfer of Representation 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Lord Chancellor

Appellant

Alexander Johnson & Co. Solicitors

First Respondent

Mr Martin McCarthy

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Full Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents are entitled to fees under the GFS or VHCC scheme after withdrawal of representation order post-VHCC classification
  2. 2 Whether, if GFS applies, remuneration should be on a 'cracked trial' or 'guilty plea at PCMH' basis

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 10(6) of Schedule 2 to the 2007 Funding (Amendment) Order must be read in the context of the legislative scheme, which provides that once a case is classified as a VHCC, the GFS does not apply to VHCC panel members, even if the representation order is withdrawn. The Costs Judge was wrong to allow GFS fees in these circumstances. The correct interpretation is that VHCC panel members are only entitled to VHCC remuneration after classification, regardless of withdrawal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of Costs Judge Simons set aside
  • Respondents not entitled to GFS fees after VHCC classification and withdrawal of representation order