R (TM Eye Ltd) v Dean Hall

R (TM Eye Ltd) v Dean Hall

The court determined that the hourly rates historically awarded (£89 for investigative work and £32 for travel) were outdated and did not reflect inflation or the increased costs of business since 2015. Applying a broad-brush inflation adjustment of 20%, the court set the appropriate hourly rate for investigative and travel work at £107 per hour and for supervisory work at £142 per hour. The court rejected the Appellant's claim for a profit element, holding that section 17 is purely compensatory and does not permit profit recovery. The determination is limited to the two cases under appeal and does not establish fixed rates for all future prosecutions.

Parties
Appellant: TM Eye Ltd; Defendant: Dean Hall; Defendant: Florentina Radu; Defendant: Carmen Tedorescu; Respondent: Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Regulation 10 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (general) Regulations 1986 / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Private Prosecution Costs, Assessment of Costs, Compensatory Principle, Market Rates, Indemnity Principle
Criminal Law Costs Law Judicial Review Private Prosecution Costs Assessment of Costs Compensatory Principle Market Rates Indemnity Principle

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TM Eye Ltd

Appellant

Dean Hall

Defendant

Florentina Radu

Defendant

Carmen Tedorescu

Defendant

Lord Chancellor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Regulation 10 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (general) Regulations 1986 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What hourly rates are reasonably sufficient to compensate the Appellant for expenses properly incurred as a private prosecutor under section 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985?
  2. 2 Should travel time be remunerated at the same rate as investigative work?
  3. 3 Is the Appellant entitled to recover a profit element in costs from central funds?

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the hourly rates historically awarded (£89 for investigative work and £32 for travel) were outdated and did not reflect inflation or the increased costs of business since 2015. Applying a broad-brush inflation adjustment of 20%, the court set the appropriate hourly rate for investigative and travel work at £107 per hour and for supervisory work at £142 per hour. The court rejected the Appellant's claim for a profit element, holding that section 17 is purely compensatory and does not permit profit recovery. The determination is limited to the two cases under appeal and does not establish fixed rates for all future prosecutions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Hourly rate for investigative and travel work set at £107 per hour for both cases.
  • Hourly rate for supervisory work set at £142 per hour.