Imran Ahmad against the Lord Advocate (Court of Session) [2024] CSOH 110 (18 December 2024)

Imran Ahmad against the Lord Advocate (Court of Session) [2024] CSOH 110 (18 December 2024)

An additional fee is justified only under head (e) (importance of the cause to the client), given the pursuer's need for vindication through financial redress after an apology was deemed insufficient. All other heads (complexity, skill, documentation, place, value, settlement steps) are not made out due to the inflated and dishonest nature of the claim and the lack of genuine complexity or novelty. The court recommends an uplift of no more than 10% for the additional fee, subject to the auditor's discretion. The 50% restriction on expenses does not apply to the expenses of the by order and opposed motion hearings.

Citation
[2024] CSOH 110
Parties
Pursuer: Imran Ahmad; Defender: The Lord Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages (malicious Prosecution) / Post Proof, Expenses and Additional Fee Determination
Outcome
Pursuer's motion for an additional fee allowed under head (e) only; recommendation to auditor for uplift not exceeding 10%; Lord Advocate found liable in expenses of by order hearing (27 March 2024) and opposed motion hearing (19 November 2024), with no 50% restriction applying to these awards.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Expenses (costs), Additional Fee, Quantum of Damages, Court Discretion
Civil Procedure Tort Law Damages Malicious Prosecution Expenses (costs) Additional Fee Quantum of Damages Court Discretion

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imran Ahmad

Pursuer

The Lord Advocate

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Damages (malicious Prosecution) / Post Proof, Expenses and Additional Fee Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's solicitors are entitled to an additional fee under rule 42.14(3) of the Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session 1994) 1994, and if so, under which heads; Whether the 50% restriction on expenses applies to the additional fee; Whether the pursuer's conduct and the inflated nature of the claim affect entitlement to or quantum of the additional fee.

Ratio Decidendi

An additional fee is justified only under head (e) (importance of the cause to the client), given the pursuer's need for vindication through financial redress after an apology was deemed insufficient. All other heads (complexity, skill, documentation, place, value, settlement steps) are not made out due to the inflated and dishonest nature of the claim and the lack of genuine complexity or novelty. The court recommends an uplift of no more than 10% for the additional fee, subject to the auditor's discretion. The 50% restriction on expenses does not apply to the expenses of the by order and opposed motion hearings.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's motion for an additional fee allowed under head (e) only; recommendation to auditor for uplift not exceeding 10%; Lord Advocate found liable in expenses of by order hearing (27 March 2024) and opposed motion hearing (19 November 2024), with no 50% restriction applying to these awards.

Orders

  • Pursuer entitled to charge an additional fee under head (e) of r 42.14(3), with recommended uplift of up to 10%.
  • Lord Advocate liable to pursuer in expenses of by order hearing (27 March 2024) and opposed motion hearing (19 November 2024), without 50% restriction.