header-logo header-logo

Judicial Review (Costs)

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

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

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In NLJ this week, Ian Smith, emeritus professor at UEA, explores major developments in employment law from the Supreme Court and appellate courts
Writing in NLJ this week, Kamran Rehman and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper examine Operafund Eco-Invest SICAV plc v Spain, where the Commercial Court held that ICSID and Energy Charter Treaty awards cannot be assigned
back-to-top-scroll