King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KA-2025-000012 - [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)

Fecha: 16-Sep-2025

The Appeal

13.

The Appellants have appealed against the Order of His Honour Judge Simpkiss. In the Appellant’s Notice, it was stated that they wished to appeal against the order that they pay the Respondent’s costs. The Appellants explained that:

“In substance, this is not an appeal against costs. This is an appeal against the underlying decision. . . . The learned judge decided that [Mr Middleton] was entitled [to conduct litigation (a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007)]. The learned judge decided that he was so entitled and ordered us to pay costs. This decision is wrong in law”.

14.

In their Grounds of Appeal, the Appellants contend that the decision was wrong in law in that His Honour Judge Simpkiss had:

misdirected himself on section 21(3) of the LSA;

ii)

failed to take into account sections 14 and 16 of the LSA;

iii)

misinterpreted the judgment given by Fancourt J in Khan;

iv)

failed to take into account the judgment given by Andrews J in Jetly v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 204 (Admin);

failed to take into account the representations made by the Law Society to the Court in Baxter;

vi)

carried out a summary assessment of costs in breach of CPR 45.63;

vii)

awarded costs in breach of the indemnity principle; and

viii)

awarded costs, which are not recoverable under CPR Part 45.8.

15.

In essence, the Grounds of Appeal can be broken down into two core points: (i) did His Honour Judge Simpkiss err in deciding that Mr Middleton was authorised to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall; and (ii) did His Honour Judge Simpkiss err in making an award of costs, or making an award in the amount of £10,653, against the Appellants.

16.

At the appeal hearing before me, Mrs Mazur represented the Appellants, with Mr Stuart following on with some very brief submissions. Mr Bennett represented the Respondent. I commend all of those who advocated before me for the clarity of their submissions. In particular, I wish to say that Mrs Mazur, who is not a practising lawyer, made submissions on the law which were of a very high quality.