Case Note – costs of interested parties in judicial review proceedings: CPRE Kent v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government UK/SC 2019/0174

5 August 2021

The Supreme Court has, unusually, recently heard, and now delivered judgment on, an appeal concerning costs in statutory appeal and judicial review cases.  It is unusual for costs issues to be considered significant enough to merit consideration by the Supreme Court and, not least given the outcome of the appeal – and of course it is easy to be wise after the event – it is something of a surprise that permission to appeal was granted in the first place.
 

The issue in the case was simply stated: “This is an appeal against an order for costs. The context is an application for statutory review of a planning decision in which the claimant was refused permission to proceed. The question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding as a practice that, in the context of such a refusal of permission, where two defendants and an interested party each incurred expense in preparing a separate acknowledgement of service and summary grounds for contesting the claim, each had a prima facie entitlement to its costs”. The decision of the Supreme Court (which recognised that the issue equally arose in judicial review cases) was that the Court of Appeal had not ‘erred in law’ and that there was such an entitlement.

The consequence of this decision is that an interested party’s ability to recover costs in judicial review cases will vary according to the stage of the proceedings:

(a) as confirmed in the CPRE case, where permission is refused the costs of preparing the acknowledgment of service and summary grounds can be recovered; but,

(b) if permission is considered at an oral hearing and refused, an interested party (and also a defendant) cannot normally recover the costs of preparing for and attending the oral hearing; and,

(c) if the case goes to trial and the claimant loses, an interested party will not be able to recover the costs of the trial hearing unless she can show that there was a separate issue in the claim on which she was entitled to be heard or on which she had an interest which required separate representation from the defendant.

Although the decision in CPRE case is a helpful one for interested parties, albeit it has simply confirmed what was already an established approach of the lower Courts, it will still remain open for claimants to argue that, despite the prima facie entitlement to costs, the amount of costs recoverable should be limited or even minimal. At the Court of Appeal stage of the CPRE case Lord Justice Coulson had made it clear that an interested party could only recover costs of preparing the acknowledgment of service and summary grounds to the extent that the costs were reasonable and proportionate; and that in assessing this, it would be relevant to consider the extent to which the interested party had distinct issues or interests in the claim. Thus “…where a judge has two sets of summary grounds of dispute, he or she will consider the utility of each and the extent to which one defendant should have anticipated the points raised by another, so as to make proportionate costs orders”.

Further Information

If you have any questions or concerns about the content covered in this blog, please contact any member of our Public Law team.

 

About the Authors

Adam Chapman is a Partner in our Public Law team. He has a wealth of knowledge as a public lawyer and his areas of expertise include judicial review litigation, human rights law, public inquiries, inquests, information law and contempt of court.

Michael Tyler is a Partner in our Costs & Litigation Management team. He has conducted costs proceedings at first instance and on appeal in the High Court and Supreme Court Privy Council. Michael is also a qualified legal project practitioner.

 

 

Latest blogs & news

What is Next for GDPR in the UK, is Change on the Horizon?

The General Data Protection Regulation (known to everyone as the GDPR) is probably the most famous piece of legislation to come from the EU. It was and is incredibly ambitious in its scope, and shapes the way we engage with organisations both online and in the real world. When the UK formally withdrew from the EU, GDPR became retained EU law and continued to apply as before. The government have recently announced that they want to reform data protection legislation, but substantial deregulation might be an unrealistic ambition.

Press Release: Kingsley Napley announces Sophie Kemp as new Head of Public Law team

Kingsley Napley LLP is pleased to announce that Sophie Kemp becomes Head of the Public Law team with effect from this week.

Case Note – challenging the Court’s jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings: R (Girgis) v Joint Committee on Intercollegiate Examinations [2021] EWHC 2256 (Admin)

The Administrative Court of England & Wales has recently considered a challenge to its jurisdiction to hear a judicial review claim on the basis (asserted by the defendant) that the claim should be heard at the Court of Session in Scotland. As explained below, the challenge was unsuccessful, but the case is interesting not just because of the Court’s conclusion on the substantive issue but also because of His Honour Judge Simon’s approach to the “technical” (procedural) issues the case gave rise to.

New guidance encourages judicial review practitioners to be concise, succinct and prepared

Earlier this year, changes to Practice Direction 54A (covering judicial review) and 54B (covering urgent applications) came into effect. This blog will consider the impact that the changes have had on the procedure for judicial review, before turning to a recent example of the perils of failing to follow the rules.

Can you devise an effective ouster clause to exclude a category of decision making from judicial review?

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill contains a new ‘ouster clause’ designed to prevent judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decisions on certain applications for permission to appeal against decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal. This blog explores why drafting legislation to restrict judicial review is so difficult.

The UK Supreme Court has confirmed the principles for judicial review of policies

R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37 and R (BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38

Two linked Supreme Court judgments provide a reminder to claimants that challenges to policies should focus on whether the policies authorise or approve violations of the law. The court acknowledges that policies are issued to promote practical objectives and the standards set for reviewing them must not be unduly demanding.

Case Note – costs of interested parties in judicial review proceedings: CPRE Kent v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government UK/SC 2019/0174

The Supreme Court has, unusually, recently heard, and now delivered judgment on, an appeal concerning costs in statutory appeal and judicial review cases.  It is unusual for costs issues to be considered significant enough to merit consideration by the Supreme Court and, not least given the outcome of the appeal – and of course it is easy to be wise after the event – it is something of a surprise that permission to appeal was granted in the first place.

Regulating working conditions: a ‘one stop shop’ approach to tackling modern slavery

To meet widespread concern about vulnerable workers and working conditions in industries including agriculture, fashion, food and waste disposal, last month (June 2021) the government set up a new watchdog to take over responsibility for tackling modern slavery, enforcing the minimum wage and protecting agency workers.

Data Subject Access Requests: The Do’s and Don’ts for Charitable Organisations

A Data Subject Access Request, or DSAR, is any request made by an individual for their own personal data. While they are quick and easy for an individual to make, many long hours and significant resources from your organisation will be needed in order to properly respond.

Judicial Review Reform – waiting for the sting

Long awaited reforms to judicial review were revealed yesterday by Robert Buckland in his Judicial Review and Courts Bill. Thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions (so called “Cart JRs”) is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.

Reported Amazon fine of $425m 'biggest test' of GDPR enforcement yet - Adam Chapman quoted in Compliance Week

Adam Chapman, Partner and head of our Public Law team, has been quoted in Compliance Week following reports that Amazon could be in line for Europe's largest fine for privacy violations over the way it collects personal data and uses it for marketing purposes.

Kingsley Napley's Public Law team response to the Government Consultation regarding the Independent Review of Administrative Law

Kingsley Napley’s Public Law team is pleased to have responded to the Government’s Consultation about judicial review, which is connected to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (the “IRAL”).

Safeguarding - 5 golden principles for school leaders

Over the past few weeks there has been a steady stream of disturbing stories alleging sexual harassment and sexual abuse of children attending a variety of schools across the country, not just incidents involving children and adults but in many cases peer-on-peer abuse.

A review of the SRA's Upholding Professional Standards Report 2018/19

The SRA introduced a new assessment and early resolution process focusing on upfront engagement and delivering, where possible, earlier outcomes on concerns reported to it. Additionally, in February 2019, the SRA introduced a revised Enforcement Strategy, setting out its approach to enforcement and the factors it will take into account when considering whether regulatory action is needed. 

Government Launches Public Consultation on Reforms to Judicial Review

On 18 March 2021 the government published the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and began a public consultation on reforms to judicial review. This blog provides some initial thoughts on these important developments. For background on the IRAL see our introductory blog here.

Coaching, Teaching and Support Work in Lockdown: Safeguarding and Data Protection considerations when working with children online

The COVID-19 crisis has forced sports clubs, schools, universities and charities to rapidly change their approaches to coaching, teaching and support work. The regulations on social distancing have forced organisations to innovate; services which had previously been offered mostly or wholly in person were rapidly shifted online during “lockdown 1” and will return online at least for the duration of “lockdown 3”.  If the vaccine rollout has the desired effect there will no doubt be some return to “traditional” methods, but it seems very unlikely that the changes brought about by the pandemic will be completely reversed.  In this blog, Claire Parry from Kingsley Napley’s Regulatory team and Fred Allen from the Public Law team look at the challenges organisations face engaging with children online.

Press release: Okpabi v Shell - Supreme Court rules that Nigerian Communities can have their case against Shell heard in the English Courts

The Supreme Court ruled on 12 February 2021 that a case brought on behalf of over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria against Shell for alleged environmental degradation in the Niger Delta may be heard in the English courts. It overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and High Court and reaffirmed its landmark decision in Lungowe v Vedanta.

Supreme Court rules that Nigerian communities can have their case against Shell heard in the English courts

This morning (12 February 2021) the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell (“Okpabi”), a case concerning mass oil pollution in the Niger Delta. Judgment is in favour of the claimants, communities representing over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria, whose claim against oil conglomerate Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary can now be heard in the English courts.

UK COVID-19 contact tracers working from abroad - Adam Chapman quoted in The Guardian

Adam Chapman, Partner and head of our Public Law team has been quoted in The Guardian regarding a company requiring COVID-19 caseworkers to turn on ‘geo-tracking’ over concerns about personal data leaving the UK.

Business and Human Rights Legislation and the Enforcement Question - A report by Kingsley Napley and Dr Rachel Chambers

Globally, a trend is taking shape towards legislation that asks more from businesses than the reporting obligations of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, in the area of business and human rights.

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility