Plaintiff not protected from costs order
LAW REPORT 27 February 1996
Once the steps covered by a plaintiff's legal aid certificate had been accomplished, the certificate was spent and the plaintiff was no longer a legally assisted person protected against an order for costs in respect of any further steps taken in the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the plaintiff from Judge Ford's decision in the Patents County Court that the plaintiff was not a legally assisted person entitled to protection against an order of costs under section 17 of the Legal Aid Act 1988.
Section 17 provides:
The liability of a legally assisted party under an order for costs made against him with respect to any proceedings shall not exceed the amount (if any) which is a reasonable one for him to pay having regard to all the circumstances, including the financial resources of all the parties and their conduct in connection with the dispute.
The plaintiff, a registered proprietor of a United Kingdom patent, was granted legal aid to take proceedings against the defendant for breach of patent rights,
limited to obtaining further evi-
dence and thereafter counsel's opinion as to the merits and quantum, and to include settling of proceedings or defence (and counterclaim) if counsel so advise.
Counsel was unable to advise on the validity of the patent as he was not provided with details of any prior art but advised that, if the patent was valid, the plaintiff had a good arguable case. He settled a draft statement of case. Without further reference to the legal aid committee proceedings were then issued. The defendant denied infringement of the patent and challenged its validity, relying on prior art. The plaintiff subsequently discontinued the proceedings.
The defendant, who was not given notice of the issue of the legal aid certificate, sought to recover against the plaintiff the costs of preparing and settling a defence to the proceedings. The plaintiff applied for an order that his liability for costs should be limited as if section 17 applied.
Gilead Cooper (Mildred & Beaumont) for the plaintiff; Gregory Chambers (Eversheds, Nottingham) for the defendant.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said that the appeal raised an issue of considerable practical importance on the legal effect of a legal aid certificate granted to the plaintiff and arose where a legal aid certificate was limited by reference to specific procedural steps or stages.
It was accepted that the issue of proceedings was a step which was outside the scope of the plaintiff's legal aid certificate. The plaintiff had been assessed as having a disposable income of nil and a disposable capital of nil and had not been required to make any contribution towards his legal aid expenditure. The question was whether section 17 protected the plaintiff against an order for payment of the defendant's costs.
The plaintiff did not have the benefit of a legal aid certificate to issue proceedings. The defendant incurred the relevant costs preparing and delivering a defence to proceedings which the plaintiff had no authority from the legal aid committee to issue.
His Lordship could not see how, in relation to those costs, the plaintiff was to be regarded as a legally assisted person. That was exactly what he was not. He had been such for the accomplishment of three clearly defined steps. Those steps had been accomplished. There was strictly no need to discharge the certificate. It was spent. Everything it authorised had been done.
The proposition that a legal aid certificate granted to cover certain procedural steps or stages protected the assisted party against an order for costs until the certificate was discharged was not sound. Littaur v Steggles Palmer  1 WLR 287 showed that the legal aid certificate did not have to be discharged if it was spent.
So, from the time of the issue of proceedings, the plaintiff held no relevant legal aid certificate. His solicitors were not thereafter entitled to be paid by the legal aid board until a new certificate had been issued. And the plaintiff was not entitled to the protection of section 17. Everything which the current certificate authorised to be done had been done. The appeal was dismissed.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson agreed. Lord Justice Schiemann concurred.
Latest in News
From the blogs
Take inspiration from the green-fingered brigade who have been showing off their creativity at the R...
There are more empty shops on our high streets than ever before, says another report into the state ...
The guard has changed at Old Trafford for the first time in 26 years. Meanwhile, down the road, the ...
There are a good many moments in the second episode of this psychological thriller that deserve refl...
That's some guestlist! Stunning images show huge dynastic wedding between Ultra-Orthodox Jewish families which attracted 25,000 guests
Exclusive: Woolwich attack suspect attended meetings of banned Islamist group - and were known by security services
'Sickening, deluded and unforgivable': Horrific attack brings terror to London’s streets
World news in pictures
Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, the mother-of-two hailed as a hero for confronting Woolwich attackers, thought: 'better me than a child'
- 2 'Sickening, deluded and unforgivable': Horrific attack brings terror to London’s streets
- 4 Woolwich murder: They killed, then they performed - these men should be starved of our attention
- 5 Woolwich attack: The EDL will seek to exploit this evil crime for their own evil ends
BMF is the UK’s biggest and best loved outdoor fitness classes
Get the latest on The Evening Standard's campaign to get London's children reading.
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.