Ebbnie, R (on the application of) v Surrey Police

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr Mathew Turner (instructed by Messrs Kaj & Co Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Claimant Mr Stephen Morley (instructed by the Force Solicitor, Surrey Police) appeared on behalf of the Defendant ____________________

It is not, I think, entirely appropriate for a question to have been formulated in that way; and certainly it should not be answered by reference to the way it is formulated. Mr Turner and Mr Morley were rightly agreed that Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth did not lay down any "test". On the contrary, it is the words of statute which should be applied by the Justices. But that said, clearly the Justices were correct here to have regard to the decision in the Booth case and to that extent there can be no difficulty about the approach they adopted.

Now, in the relevant respects, what the Justices found as set out in the case stated is this, paragraph 6, and I read it out in its entirety:

I should add that a schedule of costs and bill of costs had been put in by Ms Ebbnie's solicitors which, including counsel's fees, gave rise to a total of �4,899.61. So the Justices awarded somewhat less than ten per cent of the total which had been claimed by the lawyers for Ms Ebbnie.