Seaga v Harper [2009] UKPC 26, [2009] All ER (D) 44 (Nov)
Under s 15 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 the board of the Privy Council had the power to make a direction for “the costs incurred in the prosecution of an appeal”.
If the board directed that costs were to be paid on the standard basis, they would only be allowed if they were reasonable and proportionate to the matters in issue. There was no Act of the Imperial Parliament or Order in Council which allowed for the recovery of success fees or after the event (ATE) premiums. The addition of a success fee to a fee that was reasonable and proportionate was almost certain to render the resultant fee unreasonable and disproportionate.
Although the language of s 15 of the 1833 Act was very wide it did not embrace the recovery of a success fee.
Similarly, the expense of taking out of ATE insurance cover was not naturally to be regarded as part of “the costs incurred in the prosecution of [an] appeal” as opposed to the costs involved in protecting an unsuccessful party
