Tuesday, 4 November 2014

Why did Ransomes Park Ltd tell HHJ Moloney the transcript fee was £420?

In the appeal hearing of Ransomes Park Ltd v Anderson, counsel for Ransomes asked that Mr Anderson pay Ransomes cost for obtaining a transcript of the original court hearing.

He produced an invoice stating that the cost of obtaining the transcript was £420.

The cost of the transcript raised eyebrows, as the comments on The Prankster's earlier blog showed. In the directions hearing for the case, attended by Bargepole amongst others, the Judge clearly stated that the only documents required for the appeal were the skeletons, and a transcript of the original Judgment.

The only transcript provided to the court and Mr Anderson was the transcript of the judgment. No transcript of the full hearing was provided. We can therefore be certain that the invoice was for the judgment, and not the full hearing, as this was neither required not provided.

However transcription companies are only allowed to charge a fixed rate for transcribing. The judgment is 3345 words long, and the transcription agency charges £1.75 per folio (72 words), making the actual cost around £80, not £450.

A quick check with the transcription company was therefore the order of the day. At this point the mystery deepened. The transcription company was adamant that invoice 491 047 was only for £82.25.

It did emerge that they had billed Mr Duff £420, but this was for a different invoice and for a different set of transcripts for other cases.

No doubt there will be a completely innocent explanation for all this. Perhaps Mr Duff, feverishly burning the midnight oil while poring over  the finer details of the case, fell asleep; when he woke up, his face was on the keyboard and photoshop was open. Completely unaware he had accidentally transposed the details of one invoice onto another due to random keypresses, he then submitted the altered invoice as evidence.

The Prankster has faith that HHJ Moloney will be able to get to the bottom of the matter if the issue is raised with him. If not, then the Suffolk police may be able to resolve things.

Happy Parking

*The Prankster may be giving away his age here


  1. It is also somewhat worrying to see that the invoice was made out to Proserve rather than to Ransomes.

    So how can the barrister have claimed it as a cost to Ransomes in the hearing? Was he not reading what he was putting in front of the judge?



  4. Nah, seriously.

  5. Barristers are supposed to abide by the cab-rank rule so cannot reject clients.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Well there are two things which this case highlights, both of which we already knew.

    No Judge worth his salt should make a finding in favour of a PPC. Ever.

    And no self respecting solicitor or barrister should ever agree to act for one of them.

    (Yes I know Proserve aren't strictly a PPC, but they are all as bad as each other)

  8. Is some sort of perjury offence not comitted when submitted falsified documents to a court in evidence?