![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Patel, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 2001 (19 December 2016) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2016/2001.html Cite as: [2016] EWCA Crim 2001, [2017] 1 Costs LR 77 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
RIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
____________________
R E G I N A |
||
v |
||
HITENDRA PATEL |
____________________
WordWave International Limited Trading as DTI
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr A King appeared on behalf of Neumans
Solicitors
Mr D Bedenbham appeared on behalf of the Lord Chancellor
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Fourthly, there was a deliberate failure to make reference to and disclose copies of the eight invoices which had been paid.
Fifthly, the claim on Central Funds was not an honest claim.
"Whatever the truth about the cap and its removal the evidence annexed to the Registrar's report and Mr Selby's witness statement creates a strong inference that neither Mr Patel or Mr Sheik has been honest in their dealings with the court, over this application for costs to be paid under a defendant's costs order. The evidence also demonstrates that this court can have no confidence over the accuracy of significant proportions of work claimed in the bill of costs. The issue over a concealment of the eight invoices and the inconsistent reasons given for the lack of time recording all pointed to there having been a significant lack of good faith in this claim."