Judgments - Medcalf v Weatherill and Another

(back to preceding text)

    20. The barristers' second argument on jurisdiction was also based on the language of subsection (13). It was to the effect that any order made against them could only relate to their conduct when exercising a right of audience in court. This was because they had no right to conduct litigation, as defined in sections 28 and 119(1) of the 1990 Act. Thus (it was said) they could not be liable in wasted costs for anything done when settling the draft amended notice of appeal or the skeleton arguments, the activities which had in fact given rise to most of the wasted costs claimed against them. A similar argument was advanced to and rejected by Leveson J in Worsley v Tambrands Ltd (unreported, 8 November 2000) and also by Neuberger J in Brown v Bennett (No 2). Both judges were right to reject it. Section 4 of the 1990 Act substituted a new section 51 in the 1981 Act. Once inserted that section was to be read as part of the 1981 Act. Its interpretation was to be governed by its own terms and any other terms of the 1981 Act. I would question whether it would be permissible in principle to construe subsection (13) in the light of definitions imported into the 1990 Act for quite different purposes: see Bennion, Statutory Interpretation 3rd ed, (1997), p 213. The section was intended, as already stated, simply to make plain that no liability could attach to any practitioner not involved in the litigation giving rise to the claim. For the reasons convincingly given by Leveson J it would stultify the section if a barrister were not potentially liable for conduct immediately relevant to the exercise of a right of audience but not involving advocacy in open court. If one might have thought subsection (13) to be unnecessary, the facts of Byrne v Sefton Health Authority [2002] 1 WLR 775 show that it was not.

The construction of paragraph 606 of the Code of Conduct

    21. As is evident from the quotations from the judgments of the majority and the minority in the Court of Appeal set out in paragraphs 16 and 17 above, there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of paragraph 606. The majority held that, when putting his signature to an allegation of fraud or dishonesty, counsel must have before him evidence in a form to be put before the court to make good the allegation. Wilson J held that counsel must have "material" but that it need not be evidence in admissible form.

    22. Paragraph 606(c) lays down an important and salutary principle. The parties to contested actions are often at daggers drawn, and the litigious process serves to exacerbate the hostility between them. Such clients are only too ready to make allegations of the most damaging kind against each other. While counsel should never lend his name to such allegations unless instructed to do so, the receipt of instructions is not of itself enough. Counsel is bound to exercise an objective professional judgment whether it is in all the circumstances proper to lend his name to the allegation. As the rule recognises, counsel could not properly judge it proper to make such an allegation unless he had material before him which he judged to be reasonably credible and which appeared to justify the allegation. At the hearing stage, counsel cannot properly make or persist in an allegation which is unsupported by admissible evidence, since if there is not admissible evidence to support the allegation the court cannot be invited to find that it has been proved, and if the court cannot be invited to find that the allegation has been proved the allegation should not be made or should be withdrawn. I would however agree with Wilson J that at the preparatory stage the requirement is not that counsel should necessarily have before him evidence in admissible form but that he should have material of such a character as to lead responsible counsel to conclude that serious allegations could properly be based upon it. I could not think, for example, that it would be professionally improper for counsel to plead allegations, however serious, based on the documented conclusions of a DTI inspector or a public inquiry, even though counsel had no access to the documents referred to and the findings in question were inadmissible hearsay. On this point I would accept the judgment of Wilson J.

Legal professional privilege

    23. In Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of legal professional privilege which may arise where an applicant seeks a wasted costs order against lawyers acting for an opposing party and at page 237B-D of its judgment it said:

    "The respondent lawyers are in a different position. The privilege is not theirs to waive. In the usual case where a waiver would not benefit their client they will be slow to advise the client to waive his privilege, and they may well feel bound to advise that the client should take independent advice before doing so. The client may be unwilling to do that, and may be unwilling to waive if he does. So the respondent lawyers may find themselves at a grave disadvantage in defending their conduct of proceedings, unable to reveal what advice and warnings they gave, what instructions they received. In some cases this potential source of injustice may be mitigated by reference to the taxing master, where different rules apply, but only in a small minority of cases can this procedure be appropriate. Judges who are invited to make or contemplate making a wasted costs order must make full allowance for the inability of the respondent lawyers to tell the whole story. Where there is room for doubt, the respondent lawyers are entitled to the benefit of it. It is again only when, with all allowances made, a lawyer's conduct of proceedings is quite plainly unjustifiable that it can be appropriate to make a wasted costs order."

I do not for my part consider this passage to be inaccurate or misleading, and counsel did not criticise it. Read literally and applied with extreme care, it ought to offer appropriate protection to a practitioner against whom a wasted costs order is sought in these circumstances. But with the benefit of experience over the intervening years it seems clear that the passage should be strengthened by emphasising two matters in particular. First, in a situation in which the practitioner is of necessity precluded (in the absence of a waiver by the client) from giving his account of the instructions he received and the material before him at the time of settling the impugned document, the court must be very slow to conclude that a practitioner could have had no sufficient material. Speculation is one thing, the drawing of inferences sufficiently strong to support orders potentially very damaging to the practitioner concerned is another. The point was well put by Mr George Laurence QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge in Drums and Packaging Ltd v Freeman (unreported, 6 August 1999) when he said, at paragraph 43:

    "As it happens, privilege having been waived, the whole story has been told. I cannot help wondering whether I would have arrived at the same conclusion had privilege not been waived. It would not have been particularly easy, in that event, to make the necessary full allowance for the firm's inability to tell the whole story. On the facts known to D3 at the time it launched this application, D3 might very well have concluded that the firm would not be able to avoid a wasted costs order, even on the 'every allowance' basis recommended by: [Sir Thomas Bingham MR] ."

Only rarely will the court be able to make "full allowance" for the inability of the practitioner to tell the whole story or to conclude that there is no room for doubt in a situation in which, of necessity, the court is deprived of access to the full facts on which, in the ordinary way, any sound judicial decision must be based. The second qualification is no less important. The court should not make an order against a practitioner precluded by legal professional privilege from advancing his full answer to the complaint made against him without satisfying itself that it is in all the circumstances fair to do so. This reflects the old rule, applicable in civil and criminal proceedings alike, that a party should not be condemned without an adequate opportunity to be heard. Even if the court were able properly to be sure that the practitioner could have no answer to the substantive complaint, it could not fairly make an order unless satisfied that nothing could be said to influence the exercise of its discretion. Only exceptionally could these exacting conditions be satisfied. Where a wasted costs order is sought against a practitioner precluded by legal professional privilege from giving his full answer to the application, the court should not make an order unless, proceeding with extreme care, it is (a) satisfied that there is nothing the practitioner could say, if unconstrained, to resist the order and (b) that it is in all the circumstances fair to make the order.

    24. It was not submitted to the House that a relaxation of the existing rules on legal professional privilege could or should be permitted in a case such as the present: the decision of the House in R v Derby Magistrates' Court, Ex parte B [1996] AC 487 gave no encouragement to such a submission, and subordinate legislation introduced to modify that decision for purposes of the wasted costs jurisdiction was held to be ultra vires in General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel [2000] 1 WLR 272 and was revoked. No attempt has been made to modify the rule by primary legislation. The result no doubt is that in a context such as the present the scope for making wasted costs orders is very limited. This is not necessarily to be regretted. In Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, 238-239 the Court of Appeal considered that wasted costs hearings should be measured in hours and urged the courts to be astute to control what threatened to become a new and costly form of satellite litigation. In Harley v McDonald [2001] 2 AC 678, reviewing the exercise by the New Zealand courts of the inherent jurisdiction to order barristers and solicitors to pay costs unnecessarily incurred, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed (at p 703, para 50):

    "As a general rule allegations of breach of duty relating to the conduct of the case by a barrister or solicitor with a view to the making of a costs order should be confined strictly to questions which are apt for summary disposal by the court. Failures to appear, conduct which leads to an otherwise avoidable step in the proceedings or the prolongation of a hearing by gross repetition or extreme slowness in the presentation of evidence or argument are typical examples. The factual basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction in such circumstances is likely to be found in facts which are within judicial knowledge because the relevant events took place in court or are facts that can easily be verified. Wasting the time of the court or an abuse of its processes which results in excessive or unnecessary cost to litigants can thus be dealt with summarily on agreed facts or after a brief inquiry if the facts are not all agreed."

Save in the clearest case, applications against the lawyers acting for an opposing party are unlikely to be apt for summary determination, since any hearing to investigate the conduct of a complex action is itself likely to be expensive and time-consuming. The desirability of compensating litigating parties who have been put to unnecessary expense by the unjustified conduct of their opponents' lawyers is, without doubt, an important public interest, but it is, as the Court of Appeal pointed out in Ridehalgh at page 226, only one of the public interests which have to be considered.

The present appeal

    25. Proceeding from the undoubted fact (with which Wilson J agreed) that at the hearing on 14-15 February there was no reasonably credible admissible evidence before the court to substantiate the seven allegations held to be improperly made, the majority of the Court of Appeal concluded that the barristers could have had no such admissible evidence before them when signing the draft amended notice of appeal and the skeleton arguments. It would seem likely that they did not. But this was to apply too stringent a test. The question is whether, at that stage, the barristers had material of any kind before them which justified the making of the allegations. This is something which the court does not know and cannot be told. Hunch and suspicion are not enough. Like Wilson J, and for the reasons given in his persuasive judgment, I remain in doubt, and the barristers must have the benefit of that doubt. In a case of this complexity, I would moreover think it unfair and contrary to the appearance of justice to condemn them unheard. While the Strasbourg jurisprudence to which the House was referred fortifies that conclusion (see, for example, De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium (1997) 25 EHRR 1 at p 48, paras 80-81) I do not think it relies on any principle not recognised by the common law. Again like Wilson J, I would not think it right to base even a partial order on the barristers' failure to abandon the objectionable allegations at the outset of the proceedings on 14 February. They do not appear to have clung to these allegations with undue tenacity, and the matters relied on by Wilson J as influencing the exercise of discretion cannot be lightly discounted.

    26. I am in full agreement with the reasons given by my noble and learned friends Lord Steyn and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. Save in relation to the transcript allegation, I am also in full agreement with the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough: on that matter I differ from him because the transcript allegation, although weaker on its face than the other allegations, was not different in kind; and also because I share the view expressed by Lord Rodger in paragraph 76 below.

    27. Despite the highly regrettable outcome for Mr Medcalf, whose successful proceedings have had severe financial consequences for him, I would allow the barristers' appeal, quash the wasted costs order made by the Court of Appeal and award the barristers the costs of and occasioned by the wasted costs application both in the Court of Appeal and before the House (such order not to be enforced without leave of the Court of Appeal in relation to any period when Mr Medcalf was legally-aided).

    28. Well after the conclusion of argument, at a stage when the opinions of the committee were in final draft, material was received from the barristers suggesting that Mr Mardell and the TMO were or might be willing after all to waive their entitlement to legal professional privilege. The committee met informally (without reviewing this material in detail) to consider whether it should explore this material further or remit the matter to the Court of Appeal. It was unanimously resolved that the appeal should be decided on the basis upon which it had been argued both in the Court of Appeal and before the House. It would be inconsistent with the clear objectives of the wasted costs regime to permit this issue to be the subject of yet further litigation.


My Lords,

    29. I limit my remarks to the question whether the two barristers against whom wasted costs orders were made by a majority in the Court of Appeal had a fair opportunity to deploy their side of the case: Medcalf v Mardell [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 146.

    30. The legislation empowering the making of wasted costs orders did not expressly address the problem which arises where a barrister is prevented by legal professional privilege from explaining what instructions and material he received from his client: section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Subsequently, the decision of the House of Lords in R v Derby Magistrates Court, Ex p B [1996] 1 AC 487, 507D, ascribed to legal professional privilege an absolute character. It appears to pre-empt the creation of exceptions in the interests of justice. Doubts have been expressed about a perceived rigidity of the law: A A S Zuckerman, "Legal Professional Privilege - the Cost of Absolutism" (1996) 112 LQR 535; Colin Tapper, "Prosecution and Privilege" (1997) 1(1) International Journal of Evidence and Proof 5; Colin Passmore, "The Legal Professional Privilege" (1999) 3(2) International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 71.

    31. It was common ground before the House that in the wasted costs jurisdiction under section 51, the court had no power to relax the privilege so as to enable a barrister to defend himself against allegations of improper conduct. Where a client seeks a wasted costs order against his barrister, a waiver of privilege in relation to all relevant matters will be implied by law: Lillicrap v Nalder & Son [1993] 1 WLR 94; Matthews and Malek, Disclosure, 2nd ed, (2001) p 297. Sometimes the jurisdiction will be invoked against a barrister by the opposite party in the proceedings. In that situation the barrister's client will usually have no incentive to waive privilege and will refuse to do so. Here lies the root of a systemic problem.

    32. The jurisdiction provides compensation for an aggrieved litigant. It has, however, a penal effect on the practitioner against whom it is exercised: see Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282, 319; Harley v McDonald [2001] 2 AC 678, 703, para 49. In wasted costs proceedings a barrister is therefore entitled to defend himself by placing before the court, without restriction, all logically relevant material about his side of the story.

    33. The wasted costs jurisdiction is available in respect of costs incurred by a party "as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission": s. 51(7). An allegation of "improper" conduct is the most serious charge. The case against the barristers was throughout advanced and considered by the Court of Appeal on the basis that they had committed improper conduct.

    34. The substance of the case against the barristers was that, contrary to paragraph 606 of the Code of Conduct, they made allegations of dishonesty against a litigant without having before them "reasonably credible material which as it stands establishes a prima facie case of [dishonesty]".

    35. This particular professional duty sometimes poses difficult problems for practitioners. Making allegations of dishonesty without adequate grounds for doing so may be improper conduct. Not making allegation of dishonesty where it is proper to make such allegations may amount to dereliction of duty. The barrister must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means his lay clients interests: para 203 of the Code of Conduct. Often the decision will depend on circumstantial evidence. It may sometimes be finely balanced. What the decision should be may be a difficult matter of judgment on which reasonable minds may differ.

    36. In the case before the House evidence is that the barristers were aware of the need for caution.

    37. By their signatures to documents submitted to the court they vouched for the fact that they had before them material justifying the making of allegations of dishonesty.

    38. Improper conduct under section 51(7) does not require proof of bad faith. Nevertheless, it is a highly material circumstance that the Court of Appeal accepted that the barristers believed in good faith that they had material which justified the making of the allegations: [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 146, 158 para 60.

    39. Furthermore, it is relevant that both barristers were acknowledged to be competent and experienced practitioners. Their bona fide views that there were materials before them justifying the allegations they made are therefore entitled to some weight. But, despite their best endeavours they failed to obtain a waiver of privilege from their client, and they were therefore unable to explain the grounds for their beliefs.

    40. In these circumstances the question is whether the barristers' beliefs that they had material which objectively justified the allegations unquestionably fell outside the range of views which could reasonably be entertained. The burden of proof is on the party applying for the wasted costs order. In Ridehalgh v Horsfield [1994] Ch 205, at 239C, Sir Thomas Bingham MR observed that the wasted cost jurisdiction "recognises a shift in the evidential burden". This observation was plainly not intended to have any application where barristers are prevented by professional privilege from telling their side of the story.

    41. The point narrows down to the question whether it has been proved that the materials on which the barristers in fact relied did not objectively justify their decision. The majority in the Court of Appeal (Peter Gibson and Schiemann LLJ), disagreeing with a strong dissenting judgment of Wilson J, answered this question in the affirmative. In doing so the Court of Appeal made a value judgment, based on inference, as to the nature and contents of the materials before the barristers. What exactly those materials included was and is unknown. Nevertheless, the majority in the Court of Appeal decided that even if the barristers had been permitted to tell their side of the story about the materials, which were before them, it would not have availed them in any way.

    42. I cannot accept the view of the majority. The law reports are replete with cases which were thought to be hopeless before investigation but were decided the other way after the court allowed the matter to be tried. Without knowing the barristers' side of the story, I am unwilling to speculate about the nature of the documents before them. In these circumstances it is unnecessary to examine the particulars of the allegations against the barristers which they had no opportunity to answer. Lawyers are also entitled to procedural justice. Due process enhances the possibility of arriving at a just decision. Where due process cannot be observed it places in jeopardy the substantive justice of the outcome. In my view the analysis of Wilson J was realistic and correct.

    43. It was impossible to determine the issue fairly. It follows that the wasted costs orders must be quashed.

    44. This conclusion has relevance for other cases involving the wasted costs procedure where the privilege prevents barristers from explaining their conduct. I am in full agreement with the guidance given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, in paragraph 23 of his reasons.

    45. For the reasons given by Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, as well as the reasons contained in this opinion, I would allow the appeals.


My Lords,

    46. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Steyn. For the reasons they have given I too would also allow the appeals.


My Lords,

    47. This appeal has raised for consideration the wasted costs jurisdiction of civil courts under s.51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 as amended by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The 1990 Act restructured the legal professions and the interrelation between the roles of solicitors and barristers. It recognised that advocacy functions could be carried out by both branches and extended the power to make orders for costs not only against solicitors exercising the right to conduct litigation on behalf of a party but also against any advocate exercising a right of audience: s.51(13). Section 51 is a provision dealing generally with the jurisdiction to make orders as to costs including a general power to determine by whom and to what extent costs of the proceedings are to be paid: s.51(3). The 'wasted costs' jurisdiction is supplementary and subsection (6) empowers the court both to disallow costs which have been wasted by a legal representative as between the lawyer and his own client and to order that the legal representative meet the whole or part of any wasted costs.

    48. The present appeal is concerned only with the problems arising from the second limb of this power. The order in the present case was an order made on the application of the claimant in the action, Mr Medcalf, against the two barristers who had acted as the advocates for the defendant, Mr Mardell, and his company on their unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal from a judgment given by Lloyd J in favour of Mr Medcalf. The complaint against the barristers made by Mr Medcalf and substantially upheld by the majority of the Court of Appeal (Peter Gibson and Schiemann LJJ, Wilson J dissenting) was that the barristers had caused him, Mr Medcalf, to incur wasted costs which the barristers ought to be ordered to meet.

    49. "Wasted costs" is a defined expression. Subsection (7) provides that it means -

        "any costs incurred by a party -

    (a)  as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or (b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay."

    The phrase "legal or other representative" is that to which I have already referred; it is defined as covering those who, in respect to a party, are exercising either a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation on the party's behalf. The aspect of these provisions with which this appeal is concerned is therefore alleged improper, unreasonable or negligent conduct by someone exercising rights of audience (ie acting as an advocate) on behalf of one party which the opposing party says should lead the court to make an order that the advocate should bear part of the costs incurred by that opposing party.

    50. At first sight, this power to make costs orders against such advocates seems sensible and straight forward. However this simplicity is deceptive as the subsequent history of the exercise of this jurisdiction has shown. These complications and pitfalls were discussed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the group of cases reported as Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 (a judgment to which my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill was, as the then Master of the Rolls, a party) and principled and authoritative solutions provided. It is apparent from what your lordships have been told from the bar that, notwithstanding that judgment, many of the adverse consequences have persisted. The same message is given in the valuable article by Mr H Evans published at (2001) 64 MLR 51. In the present case the Court of Appeal, both the majority and the minority, were following the Ridehalgh judgment although this led them to different conclusions. For myself, I would wish to take this opportunity to endorse and reaffirm what was said in that judgment. But it is clearly necessary to emphasise again some of its features.

    The Constitutional Aspect:

    51. The starting point must be a recognition of the role of the advocate in our system of justice. It is fundamental to a just and fair judicial system that there be available to a litigant (criminal or civil), in substantial cases, competent and independent legal representation. The duty of the advocate is with proper competence to represent his lay client and promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means his lay client's best interests. This is a duty which the advocate owes to his client but it is also in the public interest that the duty should be performed. The judicial system exists to administer justice and it is integral to such a system that it provide within a society a means by which rights, obligations and liabilities can be recognised and given effect to in accordance with the law and disputes be justly (and efficiently) resolved. The role of the independent professional advocate is central to achieving this outcome, particularly where the judicial system uses adversarial procedures.

continue previous