The Supreme Court Costs Office

No.7 of 2006

Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA 1507; [2006] 2 Costs LR 283

2 December 2005

Brooke, Dyson & Carnwath LJJ

The famous tennis player instructed his experienced tax advisers to handle his dispute with the Inland Revenue in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, which allowed his appeal from the Special Commissioners and Lightman J. He did not instruct solicitors. The question of costs was adjourned to decide whether, as a matter of principle, he could recover the costs of the tax advisers. The court held he was a litigant in person, within the meaning of CPR 48.6. Accordingly his right to recover his costs from the Revenue was limited by the rule to disbursements which would have been incurred by a legal representative. Only such costs as would have been incurred as a disbursement, in the form of an expert’s fee would be recoverable, the amount to be decided on detailed assessment.

The court concluded at paragraph 81:

“At first sight, it might seem regrettable that the appellant (Agassi) should not be entitled to recover all of Tenon’s (the tax advisers) fees, provided that they are reasonable and proportionate. But so to hold would undermine the delicate balance struck by CPR 48.6(3) and conflict with the established understanding of what is allowable as a disbursement …

82. The obvious solution to the problems raised by this case is for an organisation such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation to become an “authorised body” within the meaning of Section 28(5) of the 1990 Act and for those members who wish to conduct litigation to become authorised litigators and thereby “legal representatives” within the meaning of CPR 2.3(1).”