© Bankrx/shutterstock
Neil Davies & Tom Clinton discuss the decision in JAC v Choudhury & the limits of forceful litigation
- The First-tier Tribunal was right to refuse costs in JAC v Choudhury, but its characterisation of robust criticism of a public authority as unreasonable raises wider concerns.
- The decision reinforces the high threshold for tribunal costs awards while prompting debate over freedom of expression, public accountability and the limits of forceful litigation.
The First-tier Tribunal’s recent decision in Judicial Appointments Commission v Choudhury [2026] UKFTT 00844 (GRC) merits attention beyond the immediate dispute.
The tribunal, constituted by a two-judge panel, refused the Judicial Appointments Commission’s (JAC’s) application for costs following Professor Barnie Choudhury’s withdrawal of proceedings seeking certification of an alleged breach of an earlier tribunal order. In doing so, it reaffirmed the restrictive approach to costs under rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (SI 2009/1976).
That part of the decision is plainly correct. The more difficult question is whether
