QBD (Admin court) – Patterson J, 8 October 2014, unreportedThe High Court upheld a decision of a disciplinary tribunal to award administrative costs associated with a hearing against a defendant found
QBD (Admin court) – Patterson J, 8 October 2014, unreported
The High Court upheld a decision of a disciplinary tribunal to award administrative costs associated with a hearing against a defendant found guilty of professional misconduct.
The claimant, a Barrister, challenged the decision of a disciplinary tribunal in respect of the costs order made in favour of the Bar Standards Board ("BSB"). The order was made following the tribunal's findings of professional misconduct which contravened the Bar Code of Conduct and the Public Access Rules. The defendant was ordered by the disciplinary tribunal to pay costs in the sum of £4,379. These were not inter parte costs but also included the costs of the administration of the tribunal. In particular, this covered the attendance costs of the tribunal clerk, the shorthand writer and the fees and expenses for the lay members. There was no fee for counsel as counsel for the BSB had acted pro bono.
The claimant issued proceedings on the ground that the costs order was ultra vires the Disciplinary Tribunal Regulations 2009. The Tribunal's power to make such orders for costs is granted under regulation 31(1) (whether in favour of or against a defendant). Any costs ordered to be paid to or by the defendant should be paid by the BSB in accordance with regulation 31(3). Regulation 31(4) states that 'subject as aforesaid' all costs and expenses incurred by a disciplinary tribunal in connection with or preparatory to the hearing were to be borne by the BSB. The claimant's submission was that the costs order should only be on an inter partes basis and not inclusive of any administration costs incurred by the Counsel.
The claimant's argument failed and it was held that the word 'costs' within regulation 31 was appropriate to cover all costs and expenses, including those that the BSB was liable to pay. The correct interpretation of regulation 31 as a whole could include the running costs of the tribunal. This was considered to be part of the established practice, highlighting that the regulatory system was operated in the public interest therefore it was considered fair that part of the costs for running the system were met by those who had used it.
Details of the case are currently limited since only a summary is available. It will be interesting to see the extent to which the full judgment expands on the available summary and the extent to which the case represents an expansion of traditional inter partes costs principles (though we note that other regulators with a costs jurisdiction may make orders whose main constituent is the administrative cost of the hearing rather than legal costs of the successful party).
The High Court upheld a decision of a disciplinary tribunal to award administrative costs associated with a hearing against a defendant found guilty of professional misconduct.
The claimant, a Barrister, challenged the decision of a disciplinary tribunal in respect of the costs order made in favour of the Bar Standards Board ("BSB"). The order was made following the tribunal's findings of professional misconduct which contravened the Bar Code of Conduct and the Public Access Rules. The defendant was ordered by the disciplinary tribunal to pay costs in the sum of £4,379. These were not inter parte costs but also included the costs of the administration of the tribunal. In particular, this covered the attendance costs of the tribunal clerk, the shorthand writer and the fees and expenses for the lay members. There was no fee for counsel as counsel for the BSB had acted pro bono.
The claimant issued proceedings on the ground that the costs order was ultra vires the Disciplinary Tribunal Regulations 2009. The Tribunal's power to make such orders for costs is granted under regulation 31(1) (whether in favour of or against a defendant). Any costs ordered to be paid to or by the defendant should be paid by the BSB in accordance with regulation 31(3). Regulation 31(4) states that 'subject as aforesaid' all costs and expenses incurred by a disciplinary tribunal in connection with or preparatory to the hearing were to be borne by the BSB. The claimant's submission was that the costs order should only be on an inter partes basis and not inclusive of any administration costs incurred by the Counsel.
The claimant's argument failed and it was held that the word 'costs' within regulation 31 was appropriate to cover all costs and expenses, including those that the BSB was liable to pay. The correct interpretation of regulation 31 as a whole could include the running costs of the tribunal. This was considered to be part of the established practice, highlighting that the regulatory system was operated in the public interest therefore it was considered fair that part of the costs for running the system were met by those who had used it.
Details of the case are currently limited since only a summary is available. It will be interesting to see the extent to which the full judgment expands on the available summary and the extent to which the case represents an expansion of traditional inter partes costs principles (though we note that other regulators with a costs jurisdiction may make orders whose main constituent is the administrative cost of the hearing rather than legal costs of the successful party).