Campbell v Campbell, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, January 31, 2018, [2018] EWCA Civ 80

Resolution Date:January 31, 2018
Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:Campbell v Campbell

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 80

Case No: A3/2016/3318




Mr David Foxton QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

[2016] EWHC 1828 (Ch)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 31/01/2018

Before :




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr John Machell QC (instructed under the Bar Public Access Scheme) for the Appellant

Mr Andrew Twigger QC and Miss Narinder Jhittay (instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 23 January 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lord Justice Newey:

  1. The issue raised by this appeal is whether a litigant in person in whose favour a costs order is made can recover for work undertaken by a foreign lawyer.

  2. The appellant, Mr Richard Campbell, was represented in these proceedings by a London law firm, Cooke, Young & Keidan, until May 2016. He then became a litigant in person, but he has been assisted in matters relating to the litigation by Dickinson Gleeson, a firm of Jersey advocates that has been acting for him in a related case in Jersey. As regards the present proceedings, Dickinson Gleeson have, for example, helped the appellant with the drafting of correspondence and witness statements and by reviewing and advising on Scott schedules and disclosed documents. Most of the relevant work was undertaken by one partner in Dickinson Gleeson, Mr James Dickinson. Mr Dickinson qualified as a solicitor in this jurisdiction in 1997, but he moved to Jersey in 1999, became an Advocate of the Royal Court of Jersey in 2004 and, I gather, ceased to be on the roll of solicitors in England and Wales in 2014. I understand that he has now had his name restored to the roll and been granted a practising certificate, but he was not entitled to practise as a solicitor in England and Wales during the period relevant to this appeal.

  3. The costs of litigants in person are addressed in CPR 46.5. So far as material, that provides:

    ``(1) This rule applies where the court orders (whether by summary assessment or detailed assessment) that the costs of a litigant in person are to be paid by any other person.

    (2) The costs allowed under this rule will not exceed, except in the case of a disbursement, two-thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if the litigant in person had been represented by a legal representative.

    (3) The litigant in person shall be allowed--

    (a) costs for the same categories of--

    (i) work; and

    (ii) disbursements,

    which would have been allowed if the work had been done or the disbursements had been made by a legal representative on the litigant in person's behalf;

    (b) the payments reasonably made by the litigant in person for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings; and

    (c) the costs of obtaining expert assistance in assessing the costs claim.

    (4) The amount of costs to be allowed to the litigant in person for any item of work claimed will be--

    (a) where the litigant can prove financial loss, the amount that the litigant can prove to have been lost for time reasonably spent on doing the work; or

    (b) where the litigant cannot prove financial loss, an amount for the time reasonably spent on doing the work at the rate set out in Practice Direction 46.''

    (Emphasis added.)

  4. The term ``legal representative'', which features in CPR...

To continue reading