header-logo header-logo

Legal Services Commission

17 March 2011
Issue: 7457 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Lord Chancellor v Eddowes Perry and Osbourne Ltd [2011] EWHC 420 (QB), [2011] All ER (D) 54 (Mar)

The definition of “case” in para 1 of Sch 2 to the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007, SI 2007/1174, covered a single defendant case as the basic model, and it was upon that model that the later provisions in para 9 of Sch 2 to the Order for defendant uplifts were grafted in order to cover multi-defendant cases.

What was clear from sub-paras (a), (b) and (c) of para 1 of Sch 2 was that the emphasis was on a “single” indictment, “single” notice of appeal, “single” committal for sentence and “single” alleged breach of an order. In other words, in identifying the “case” for which remuneration was claimed, the focus was on the machinery by which the proceedings in the Crown Court were initiated and/or determined: indictment, notice of appeal, committal for sentence or breach of an order. If, therefore, a defendant faced two separate indictments there were two separate “cases”, for each of which the litigator

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll