[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Flynn v Robin Thompson & Anor [2000] EWHC 9004 (Costs) (25 February 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2000/9004.html Cite as: [2000] EWHC 9004 (Costs)

[New search] [Help]

Flynn v Robin Thompson & Anor

25 February 2000

Mr Justice Buckley Sitting with Assessors

1. The Claimant is known to Masters as the principal of The Solicitors' and Barristers' watchdog. He sought help from the Bar Pro Bono Unit having represented to them that, being eligible for Legal Aid, he had been unable to find a solicitor. The Pro Bono Unit informed him that they had been able to locate a solicitor, namely Mr D. K of M. J. Darby Co, whose address in West Midlands was given. In fact Mr K was not a solicitor but a legal executive. Legal Aid was obtained and proceedings commenced. Evidence was considered (including video evidence) and Mr K concluded it did not support the Claimant's case. The Legal Aid Board was notified. The Claimant made serious allegations against the firm of solicitors. Mr Darby issued an application to come off the record. He served affidavit evidence in support. Shortly before the hearing in London before the Master, the Legal Aid Certificate was discharged but written confirmation was not received prior to the hearing. The Claimant did not attend the hearing , but wrote to the Master. Mr Darby and the legal executive both attended before the Master in case questions were raised about the serious allegation being made by the Claimant. The Master was informed that Legal Aid had been discharged. The Master made the order sought and ordered that the costs of and occasioned by the application be paid by the Claimant in any event. On the same day the Claimant sent to the CAB Notice of Appeal against the discharge of Legal Aid.
    

2. The detailed assessment was conducted by a Taxing Officer. He disallowed the costs of the Legal Executive on the basis that he had been held out as a solicitor (Pearless de Rougemont v Pilbrow) (1999) 2 Costs LR 109. He allowed the costs of Mr Darby attending before the Queen's Bench Master. The Claimant brought in Objections to these determinations. The Master held that the objections to the disallowance of the costs of the Legal Executive had already been dealt with by the Taxing Officer, so these objections were dismissed. The Master upheld the allowance of Mr Darby at the hearing before the Queen's Bench Master.
    

3. The Claimant raised a subsidiary point to the effect that he did not consider he had any liability for the costs because his Legal Aid Certificate had been discharged in advance of the hearing before the Queen's Bench Master. Accordingly, the solicitors "had no authority to go to court to come off the court record". He relied upon Order 50, r. 5 of the County Court Rules and RSC Order 67, r.6(4) and contended that as the solicitors, prior to making their application to be removed from the record, were in fact already removed from the record and as such, the solicitors were in effect attempting to extort monies from the Claimant. The point was not part of the objections. The Master drew the case of Cope v United Dairies [1963] 2 QB 33 to the attention of the Claimant. The costs must be taxed by reference to the order.
    

4. The Claimant sought a review, basing his evidence on "Order 67, r.6(4)". On the morning of the review, a telephone call was received from the Claimant's wife to say he had been taken ill and the doctor had been called to see him later that day. She sent a faxed message to confirm the position. A Mr Joseph, who I understand is also associated with the Solicitors' and Barristers' Watchdog, attended the hearing. A transcript of a Judgment on Costs in a case brought by him against Darby & Co had been included in the appeal bundle. In that case, he had been advised by Mr Flynn.
    

5. At the hearing Mr Darby was able to explain that the Claimant had appealed the decision of the Queen's Bench Master to the Judge in Chambers and to the Court of Appeal without success. The Judge and the assessors had formed the preliminary view that the review process was not the procedure by which the Claimant should seek a remedy. Once it became clear that the order of the Queen's Bench Master had been the subject of two unsuccessful appeals, the Judge was able to dismiss the application notwithstanding the absence of the Claimant. The costs were summarily assessed. A request for a transcript of the Judgment at public expense was refused. The Judge briefly reiterated the reason for dismissing the appeal.