Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 27


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Where is your central funds provision?
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:  Well, it says, "... costs of a litigant in person
     4        [can] be paid by any other party to the proceedings or in
     5        any other way", which I cannot see any other way except for
     6        public funds which, I believe, to be the Lord Chancellor's
     7        Department, because if the courts are paying whatever it is
     8        a day, œ6,000 or œ7,000 a day for these proceedings for the
     9        incourt costs, official costs, then the additional extra
    10        needed to provide transcripts to the Defendants, which is
    11        absolutely fundamental -----
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, but in order to make the order for costs
    14        to be paid in any other way one has to have a power.  There
    15        are certain circumstances in which a court can order that
    16        someone who is not party to the proceedings pay the costs
    17        of a party.  There are certain circumstances in which the
    18        court can order that costs be paid out of public funds, but
    19        one has to have the power to order that they are paid out
    20        of public funds before one can order them to be paid in
    21        that way.  Then this section says made such an order which,
    22        first of all, you have to have power to make, and then
    23        there is provision for determination of the costs in
    24        various ways.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  I would argue that this and the last authority,
    27        which was Order 62, rule 3 that we referred to, clearly
    28        indicates that the court does have the discretion to order
    29        costs to be met of litigants in person, and that really it
    30        is up to the Plaintiffs to argue that there is some
    31        authority limiting that so that in this case it cannot be
    32        exercised.  Having established that there is that
    33        discretion, then we would argue that it should be used for
    34        our benefit because this case cries out for that.
    35
    36        There can probably not have been such a comparable case in
    37        British history that cried out for public funds to be used
    38        for the benefits of unrepresented Defendants in such a long
    39        case, in such an imbalanced case, compared to the resources
    40        of the other side.
    41
    42        So what we are asking for is not the equivalent of full
    43        legal aid, but we are asking for the costs of transcripts
    44        to be met from public funds and, in effect, it is probably
    45        even going to be less than the full price if the Plaintiffs
    46        would agree to provide a copy of their -- if they wish
    47        copying charges to be paid for, then the State can pay œ20,
    48        or whatever it is, to Barnett Lenton for that purpose.  Of
    49        course, the Plaintiffs can waive their condition which they
    50        have refused to which would give them, in order to keep a 
    51        commercial advantage for themselves, that we are unable to 
    52        get the transcripts for three weeks at the cheaper price of 
    53        œ20 a day; but I am sure they could be asked to reconsider
    54        that if the court is minded to pay for the costs out of
    55        public funds.
    56
    57        There is something which I was advised about which I am not
    58        very clear on myself, but I would like to say it - about
    59        interim taxation of costs on a weekly basis, that we can
    60        seek the interim taxation of costs on a weekly basis.  In

Prev Next Index