| Display title | R v Nelson [2022] EWHC 2928 (SCCO) |
| Default sort key | R v Nelson (2022) EWHC 2928 (SCCO) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,118 |
| Page ID | 14754 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 12:26, 4 December 2022 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 21:51, 19 January 2023 |
| Total number of edits | 3 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The barrister appealed the determining officer's decision on his fees for a complex mental health criminal appeal. He had claimed £4,350 for c.20 hours work prior to the leave to appeal hearing and £7,500 for a subsequent 32 hours' work. The determining officer had only allowed an attendance-only fee of £150 for the hearing, and a brief fee of £4,000 for the subsequent work. The costs judge disagreed with the determining officer's interpretation and application of the court orders, partly because it was contrary to the provisions of the 2013 Regulations and partly because it is consistent with established principles of interpretation, and allowed him £3,250 and £6,000 respectively. (The barrister had already lost money on his 43-page Advice and Grounds when his instructing solicitors became insolvent.) |
