It could be the 'end of the road' for the bar's licensed access scheme after the Court of Appeal refused to award Andre Agassi all his costs following his victory over the taxman, the tennis star's tax adviser claimed this week.

The court ruled that Revenue & Customs did not have to pay the costs of the tax experts at Tenon Media that Mr Agassi employed to instruct a barrister, because they were neither solicitors nor authorised litigators.


The issue arose last year, after the Court of Appeal allowed the US sportsman's challenge to a High Court ruling that he was liable to pay UK income tax on money earned from overseas product endorsements, even if the money was never in this country, by virtue of the fact that he was on tour in Britain.


The appeal court ruled that Mr Agassi was not liable to pay the tax on income paid by sportswear makers Nike and Head Sports to his US-based company, Agassi Enterprises, because none of them was resident or had a tax presence in Britain.


The Revenue, which has appealed the decision to the House of Lords, disputed its liability to pay Mr Agassi's costs in relation to Tenon.


Mr Agassi brought the initial case using the licensed access scheme, previously known as Bar Direct, which was designed to provide more cost-effective access to barristers in certain circumstances.


The appeal court said Mr Agassi might be able to recover some of his expenses as disbursements for ancillary assistance provided by Tenon, but in law was not entitled to recover the cost of work that would normally have been done by a solicitor.


Julian Hedley, office managing director for Tenon, said: 'The judges accepted we had used the licensed access scheme correctly and acknowledged that by doing so, the costs were one-third of what they would have been if we had instructed solicitors. The irony is that if we had instructed solicitors, the £60,000 they would have charged would have been completely recoverable.'


Mr Hedley claimed the ruling would put him off using the scheme again and commented: 'It is a distinct possibility that this could be the end of the road for the scheme.'


A spokesman for the Bar Council, which intervened to support Mr Agassi, said: 'The rules on costs need urgent re-examination to ensure that they take a modern approach in encouraging litigants to use effective and economical ways of managing litigation.'


Kevin Martin, President of the Law Society, which intervened to support the Revenue, said: 'We are pleased that the court shared the Law Society's belief that the regulatory scheme relating to the conduct of litigation should be upheld.'