RPC act for GunnerCooke LLP in two proceedings arising from the private prosecution: the s.19A costs application at Westminster Magistrates' Court and the professional negligence claim in the Business and Property Courts in Newcastle. Scott Ashby of RPC also attended the judicial review hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Administrative Court. Their instructed counsel, Angus Bunyan of 2 Hare Court, made submissions in July 2024 stating that GunnerCooke had approached the s.19A application on a "transparent and realistic basis" following a "careful review of the case file." RPC subsequently confirmed that they had not been provided with documents sent to them — raising a direct question about what that file review actually covered.
The following individuals have been identified in correspondence and proceedings as acting for GunnerCooke through RPC.
Named in my correspondence to Angus Bunyan as a recipient and point of contact at RPC. Copied on the 4 May 2026 email raising concerns about the completeness of the case file reviewed before the July 2024 submissions were advanced.
Named alongside Jo Makin as an RPC recipient in the correspondence of 4 May 2026 concerning the incomplete file issue. Instructed as part of RPC's team acting for GunnerCooke in the s.19A costs proceedings and professional negligence claim. Ashby also attended the judicial review hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Administrative Court.
Instructed by RPC as counsel for GunnerCooke. Made submissions on 12 July 2024 in the s.19A costs proceedings stating GunnerCooke's errors were "evident from a careful review of the case file", that there was "no record in the GC file" of certain advice, and that GunnerCooke had approached the application on a "transparent and realistic basis." In his March 2026 note, he invited the court to have close regard to those earlier submissions. When Neeraj wrote to him directly on 4 May 2026, Bunyan replied on 8 May 2026 stating that as counsel for an opposing party he could not receive or respond to direct communications and directing all contact to RPC.
The GunnerCooke partner who conducted the private prosecution and who referred me to Regan Peggs when GunnerCooke became conflicted. On 23 May 2024, Khan stated that a OneDrive link containing "all of our case files" had been sent to my counsel, Cammerman KC. He also advised me not to review certain material myself on the basis that I remained a witness. It subsequently emerged that material was missing from what had been provided — including WhatsApps between Khan and me, referral material and JR/Admin Court transition documents.
RPC act for GunnerCooke in two proceedings arising directly from the private prosecution. Scott Ashby of RPC also attended the judicial review hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Following the stay of the private prosecution, GunnerCooke faced a costs application under s.19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 — the provision under which a court can order a legal representative (here, the solicitor conducting the prosecution) to pay costs where they have acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently. RPC act for GunnerCooke in defending that application before Westminster Magistrates' Court. DJ Ikram's judgment of 27 April 2026 determined the apportionment of the total allowed costs between Neeraj under s.19 and GunnerCooke under s.19A as part of the same apportionment exercise.
I have brought a professional negligence claim against GunnerCooke before the Business and Property Courts in Newcastle. My claim addresses GunnerCooke's conduct of the prosecution from start to finish: the strategic decisions made, the failure to advise on the abuse of process risk before the summons was issued, and the attempt to attribute the costs consequences to the lay client rather than the firm. RPC act for GunnerCooke in defending that claim.
RPC are relying on the s.19 and s.19A apportionment determined by DJ Ikram to defend the negligence claim — despite the fact that the file provided to my counsel before the apportionment hearing was incomplete. The apportionment is therefore being used as a shield in the negligence proceedings in circumstances where the full factual picture was not before the court when that apportionment was made.
In his submissions of 12 July 2024, Angus Bunyan made three statements on behalf of GunnerCooke that are now directly in question:
In his March 2026 note, Bunyan returned to those submissions and invited the court to have close regard to them in considering the apportionment of costs. The court's April 2026 judgment proceeded on the basis that GunnerCooke had been transparent about its own conduct.
RPC subsequently confirmed to me that they had not been provided with a number of documents I had sent them — including material concerning the initial referral, Nasir Khan's continuing involvement in the JR and Admin Court transition, and communications involving Regan Peggs and Mr Hughes.
On 23 May 2024, Nasir Khan told my counsel Cammerman KC that a OneDrive link had been sent containing "all of our case files." Khan also advised me not to review certain material myself on the basis that I remained a witness in the proceedings. It emerged that the following material was missing from what was provided:
The consequence was direct: I was unable, through those representing me at the apportionment hearing, to make submissions on the full factual picture. The court was invited to proceed on the basis of a "careful review of the case file" and a "transparent and realistic" approach — when the file that had been reviewed was not complete.
DJ Ikram issues his judgment staying the private prosecution. He finds there was a prima facie case on most of the Calma invoices but that there had been a deliberate breach of the duty of candour in the case summary. The prosecution is stayed. Costs applications follow.
The defendants file a s.19A costs application against GunnerCooke and a s.19 costs application against Neeraj. RPC are instructed to act for GunnerCooke. Angus Bunyan of 2 Hare Court is briefed as counsel.
Khan told my counsel that a OneDrive link had been provided containing all of GunnerCooke's case files. He also advised me not to review certain material myself on the basis that I remained a witness. It subsequently emerged that material was missing — including WhatsApps, referral documents, and JR transition correspondence.
Jo Makin of RPC writes directly to me requesting an urgent response in connection with the s.19A costs proceedings.
In correspondence to Mishcon de Reya, copied to Jo Makin and Scott Ashby at RPC, Cammerman KC, and Baker McKenzie, I state that if there is additional privileged material that sheds a different light on the cause and fault in the conduct of the case from instruction to judgment, RPC have a direct interest in drawing it to the attention of the parties. This is sent to RPC before Bunyan's July 2024 submissions are made.
The paucity of material in the disclosed file is noted — described as a reflection of its absence rather than it being ignored or withheld. RPC are on notice at this point that the file may not contain all relevant material.
Angus Bunyan makes submissions on behalf of GunnerCooke stating that the firm's errors are "evident from a careful review of the case file", that there is "no record in the GC file" of certain advice, and that GunnerCooke has approached the application on a "transparent and realistic basis." These submissions are made after RPC were on notice that the file may be incomplete. The work log shows Bunyan corresponding with Henry Hughes and Nasir Khan in connection with these proceedings — relevant to what material he actually reviewed before the submissions were advanced.
I notify Mishcon de Reya that the file provided by GunnerCooke to Cammerman KC appears to have had gaps, discovered following the instigation of the professional negligence claim. I had not viewed the GunnerCooke file myself on Khan's advice. A Dropbox link to further materials is provided. This correspondence is sent to multiple parties including RPC. The ongoing bundle is also provided to all parties on this date.
Five days before the 10 March 2026 costs hearing, Christopher Gribbin of Mishcon de Reya writes to RPC noting that Neeraj is now a litigant in person and has provided a number of documents over the previous week. Mishcon asserts that the material largely reflects material already in the possession of RPC or GunnerCooke.
This assertion is directly relevant to the incomplete file issue. If the material Neeraj provided was already in RPC and GunnerCooke's possession, the question is why it had not been disclosed to those representing him — and why Bunyan's July 2024 submissions, which stated there was "no record in the GC file" of certain advice and that the file had been "carefully reviewed", made no reference to it.
Mishcon also confirms that the hearing has been listed since November 2025 following multiple adjournments over nearly two years, and states in the strongest terms that any attempt to adjourn will be resisted.
Jo Makin of RPC replies to Mishcon confirming GunnerCooke does not intend to apply for an adjournment. The letter makes two significant concessions: first, that simply because RPC had not responded to documents provided by me does not mean they had not been considering them — the contents were being discussed with counsel and with both their professional and insurer clients. Second, that the NTT only produced its revised decision at 2.49pm on 27 February 2026, leaving limited time before the hearing.
The reference to insurer clients is notable — it confirms that GunnerCooke's professional indemnity insurer is a party to the discussions around the costs proceedings, alongside RPC as solicitors and Bunyan as counsel.
At the March 2026 costs hearing before DJ Ikram, the question of what materials had and had not been provided to those representing me remains a live issue. Bunyan's March 2026 note invites the court to have close regard to the July 2024 submissions — submissions made at a time when RPC had been put on notice that the file may be incomplete, and which were advanced on the basis of a file that did not contain all relevant material. Correspondence at this stage confirms that RPC had not been provided with documents I had sent to them.
DJ Ikram's costs judgment determines the apportionment of the total allowed costs between Neeraj under s.19 and GunnerCooke under s.19A. Both orders are made at the same hearing as part of the same apportionment exercise.
I wrote directly to Bunyan, copying Jo Makin and Scott Ashby at RPC and GunnerCooke's compliance team, setting out his concerns about the completeness of the file reviewed before the July 2024 submissions were advanced. I asked three specific questions: what file was reviewed, whether the submissions could properly have stated what they stated given the missing material, and whether the file included WhatsApps, referral material, and JR transition correspondence.
Bunyan responds stating that as counsel for an opposing party he cannot receive or respond to communications sent directly from me and that all communications must be directed to RPC. He notes the order was sealed the same day as his response. I acknowledged the position and noted that my concerns remain unanswered and that I would pursue the matter with RPC and GunnerCooke. The three questions put to Bunyan — about what file was reviewed, whether the submissions were proper given missing material, and what the file contained — remain unanswered.
In his letter of 4 May 2026, I put three specific questions to Bunyan. Bunyan's response of 8 May 2026 declined to engage on the substance, directing all communication to RPC. The questions remain outstanding.
s.19A Costs Proceedings: Westminster Magistrates' Court — refs 2300350663 & 2300350388 — DJ Ikram
Professional Negligence: BL-2025-NCL-000007 — Business & Property Courts, Newcastle
RPC Solicitors: Jo Makin, Scott Ashby
Counsel for GunnerCooke: Angus Bunyan — 2 Hare Court, Temple, London EC4Y 7BH