Hourly rates

A v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2008] EWHC 1658 QB

The claimant had commenced proceedings in London against the defendant chief constable claiming that, as a result of wrongful action by police officers in Sheffield, he had developed schizophrenia. The action was transferred to Sheffield, but the claimant ceased instructing his local solicitors and began instructing a firm in London on the grounds that his former solicitors were not specialists in litigation against the police and he considered it vital that he receive ‘appropriate specialist counsel’. The claim was settled in the claimant’s favour and on the assessment of costs, he was allowed costs on the standard basis by reference to the reasonable costs of instructing a suitable solicitor in Sheffield rather than the higher cost of the London-based solicitor. The judge found that, in essence, it was a personal injury claim in which the issue of liability had been complex and that a solicitor with experience of police matters ought to be able to deal with the matter properly, with the assistance of experienced counsel if necessary. It had been incumbent upon the claimant to make efforts to look for a different or specialist firm in the locality rather than using perhaps the only firm he had heard of. The claimant argued that the judge had failed to appreciate the special nature of the claim required a solicitor with three-fold expertise in: (i) bringing claims against the police; (ii) establishing claims for psychiatric injury; and (iii) understanding the significance of racist action in the causation of psychiatric harm and that at the relevant time his London solicitor was experienced in those matters. The claimant also contended that there was no evidential basis for thinking that such a solicitor could be found in Sheffield at the time.