header-logo header-logo

29 November 2007
Issue: 7299 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Judicial Review (Costs)

Davey v Aylesbury Vale District Council [2007] EWCA Civ 1166, [2007] All ER (D) 259 (Nov)

Lord Justice Sedley, at para 21, gives guidance as to the recoverability of pre-permission costs by a successful defendant following dismissal of the substantive judicial review claim.

(i) On the conclusion of full judicial review proceedings in a defendant’s favour, the nature and purpose of the particular claim is relevant to the exercise of the judge’s discretion as to costs. In contrast to a judicial review claim brought wholly or mainly for commercial or proprietary reasons, a claim brought partly or wholly in the public interest, albeit unsuccessful, may properly result in a restricted or no order for costs.

(ii) If awarding costs against the claimant, the judge should consider whether they are to include preparation costs in addition to acknowledgment costs. It will be for the defendant to justify these. There may be no sufficient reason why such costs, if incurred, should be recoverable.

(iii) It is highly desirable that these questions should be dealt with by the trial judge and left to the costs judge only in relation to the reasonableness of individual items.

(iv) If at the conclusion of such proceedings the judge makes an undifferentiated order for costs in a defendant’s favour (a) the order has to be regarded as including any reasonably incurred preparation costs, but (b) the 2004 Practice Statement should be read so as to exclude any costs of opposing the grant of permission in open court, which should be dealt with on the principles laid down in R (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster City Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1346, [2003] All ER (D) 222 (Oct).

Sir Anthony Clarke MR added (at paras 29 and 30) that costs should ordinarily follow the event and that it is for the claimant who has lost to show that some different approach should be adopted on the facts of a particular case.

It will be for the successful defendant to justify preparation costs. That is because he must show that it was reasonable and proportionate to incur such costs. If the claimant wishes to submit that any or all the costs which would be otherwise recoverable should not be recovered, however reasonable and proportionate they were, it is for him to persuade the court to that effect.

Issue: 7299 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Stephen Ward, The Barrister Group

NLJ Career Profile: Stephen Ward, The Barrister Group

From mowing lawns to life at the Bar: Stephen Ward reflects on an unconventional career

Clarke Willmott—Ben Loosemore

Clarke Willmott—Ben Loosemore

Commercial property partner joins Clarke Willmott in Southampton

Ellisons—Robert Tiffen

Ellisons—Robert Tiffen

Robert Tiffen joins Ellisons as Partner in growing Norwich office

NEWS
The Law Society RFC Festival of Sport returns next month, bringing together legal and financial services professionals for one of the sector’s largest annual sporting events
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

back-to-top-scroll