Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> Hinde v Harbourne & Ors [2004] EWHC 90023 (Costs) (19 December 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2004/90023.html
Cite as: [2004] EWHC 90023 (Costs)
[New search] [Help]
This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.
No.6 of 2004
Hinde v Harbourne & Ors
19 December 2003
Mr Justice Neuberger (Sitting without Assessors)
Following the death of her partner the Claimant issued proceedings in the County Court claiming: (a) that she had a beneficial interest in a property owned by her partner; and/or (b) that she was entitled to a sum of money from her former partner’s estate pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Defendants to those proceedings were members of the former partner’s family.
The County Court Judge held, on 23 April 2002, that the Claimant had no interest in the property, but awarded her £20,000, under the 1975 Act and ordered the Defendants to pay her costs.
The Claimant applied for and obtained permission to appeal the decision she had no interest in the property, and the Defendants for their part obtained permission to appeal the order the Claimant be paid £20,000 and the order for costs. The Claimant applied to the Legal Services Commission for public assistance in respect of her costs on the appeal and the cross appeal, resulting in a certificate being issued to her, the scope of the certificate being in these terms:
"As appellants to be represented on an appeal to the High Court in an action between the funded client/assisted person and the opponents."
The "scope of certificate" also contained a "costs limitation" of £7,500.
The Judge dismissed the Claimants appeal, but allowed the Defendants’ cross-appeal on 21 March, and ordered that the Claimant should pay the costs before the County Court Judge. However, the question of the costs of the appeal and cross appeal were adjourned for further argument, which was provided in writing because of the relatively small sums at stake.
The Defendants’ contention was that the scope of certificate made it clear that the Claimant only had public assistance protection in respect of the costs of the appeal, and not to resist the cross appeal. The Claimant, on the other hand, referred to correspondence with the Legal Services Commission which indicated that, once the case had been categorised on the computer, it could not be re-categorised, and, because the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal had come first, she was treated as the Appellant.
The question then arose as to whether there was power in the Commission to amend the certificate retrospectively under paragraph C36-40 of the Funding Code.
After reviewing the authorities the Judge concluded that there was power in the Commission to backdate a certificate, and that in this case there was a very strong case for so doing, but before any final decision was made by the Commission they ought to entertain any representations which might be made by the Defendants’ solicitors, and, on that basis, further adjourned the appeal to enable those representations, if any, to be made.