Understanding Costs for Defendants in Legal Proceedings

undefined
 
Costs for Defendants
Andrew Sharland QC & Joanne Clement
15 April 2020
 
3 July 2019
 
 
Contents
 
11kbw.com
 
2
 
The starting point
 
Section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 44
 
Broad discretion as to who pays and how much
 
General rule is that the unsuccessful party is ordered to
pay the successful party’s costs
 
11kbw.com
 
3
 
Costs at the pre-action stage
 
If as a result of pre-action correspondence from a potential Claimant,
a public body withdraws or reconsiders the decision before a claim is
issued there will be no costs recovery
 
The Court has no power to make an award of costs unless and until a
claim is commenced, see s 51 SCA 1981. Courts deprecate the
pursuit of litigation solely to recover costs
 
11kbw.com
 
4
 
Costs at the permission stage (1)
 
I
f
 
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
g
r
a
n
t
e
d
 
CPR 44.13(1A)(b) Claimant's costs in the case but can seek an alternative order
 
 
I
f
 
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
i
s
 
r
e
f
u
s
e
d
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
p
a
p
e
r
s
Defendant usually entitled to reasonable costs of drafting acknowledgement of service and summary grounds of
resistance (“acknowledgement costs”), see 
Mount Cook
, 
Ewing 
and 
Roundham and Larling Parish Council
 
If multiple defendants and interested parties, each one is generally entitled to recover their acknowledgement costs
subject to proportionality: 
Campaign to Protect Rural England v SSCLG 
[2020] 1 WLR 352
 
However generally Defendants and Interested Parties are not entitled to recover “preparation costs”, ie all costs
incurred other than “acknowledgement costs”, see 
Davey 
[2008] 1 WLR 878
 
Procedure: request in summary grounds of resistance supported by a Costs Schedule. Judge, if refusing permission on
the papers, should include a decision whether to award costs in principle or not. The Claimant has 14 days to respond
in writing with other parties having 14 days to reply.
 
11kbw.com
 
5
 
Costs at the permission stage (2)
 
I
f
 
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
i
s
 
r
e
f
u
s
e
d
 
a
f
t
e
r
 
a
n
 
o
r
a
l
 
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
 
Defendants and Interested Parties are not normally entitled to the costs of attending the
hearing
 
Exceptions:
Hopeless claims
Abuse of procedure: political means
Claimant has had the benefit of a full argument (eg rolled up hearings)
Unsuccessful claimant has substantial resources
 
Recent example:  
R (Wilson) v Prime Minister 
[2019] 1 WLR 4174
Day long permission hearing a claim challenging the decision to notify the EU that the UK
intended to leave.
Hopeless and claimants were inappropriately pursuing what was effectively a political
campaign through the courts
 
11kbw.com
 
6
 
 Discontinuance, withdrawal and settlement (1)
 
D
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
n
c
e
a
 
u
n
i
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
 
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
a
 
c
l
a
i
m
 
b
y
 
t
h
e
 
C
l
a
i
m
a
n
t
.
 
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
l
y
 
d
i
s
t
i
n
c
t
 
f
r
o
m
 
w
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
 
b
y
c
o
n
s
e
n
t
 
o
r
 
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
 
s
e
e
 
R
 
(
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
P
r
o
b
a
t
i
o
n
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
)
 
v
 
S
S
J
 
[
2
0
1
4
]
 
E
W
H
C
4
7
0
6
 
CPR 38.6 provides that unless the court orders otherwise, the claimant is liable for the costs of
the defendant incurred on or before the date on which the notice of discontinuance was served on
it.
 
R (Smoke Club Ltd) v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd 
[2014] Costs LO 123: relationship between
Mount Cook 
and CPR 38.6
 
Nelson’s Yard Management Co v Eziefula 
[2013] C P Rep 29: departure from usual approach as
a result of Defendant’s unreasonable conduct
 
 
 
11kbw.com
 
7
 
Discontinuance, withdrawal and settlement (2)
 
W
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
/
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
If the Claimant withdraws claim and there has been no relevant change of position by the
Defendant, the Claimant likely to be ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs.
 
If there is a change of position by the Defendant the appropriate costs order will usually depend
on the extent to which the Claimant has achieved the result that he or she was seeking. The
Court of Appeal in 
M v Croydon 
[2012] 1 WLR 2607 suggested that there were three broad
categories of case:
Where the Claimant has been wholly successful in terms of the relief sought the Claimant will
generally recover all of his/her costs unless there is a good reason to the contrary.
Where a Claimant has only succeeded in part, the judge will normally determine how
reasonable the Claimant was in pursuing the unsuccessful relief and how important the
unsuccessful relief was compared with the successful relief.
Where the compromise does not actually reflect the Claimant’s claims the default position is
that there should be no order as to costs.
 
11kbw.com
 
8
 
Discontinuance, withdrawal and settlement (3)
 
M v Croydon 
has led to a large number of costs challenges
including:
Baxter 
[2016] 1 Costs LO 37
Tesfay 
[2016] 1 WLR 4853
ZN
 [2018] EWCA Civ 1059
Khan
 [2018] EWCA Civ 1684
RL
 [2019] 1 WLR 224
Med
way Soft Drinks Ltd 
[2019] EWCA Civ 1041
Parveen 
[2020] 4 WLR 53
 
11kbw.com
 
9
 
Discontinuance, withdrawal and settlement:
Procedure
 
See Administrative Court Office Guidance April 2016 reproduced in Annex 5 to The Administrative Court:
Judicial Review Guide, July 2019
 
The parties should seek to reach agreement on costs wherever possible
 
If the parties cannot agree:
Within 28 days of the consent order, the Defendant may file with the Court and serve on the other parties,
submissions as to what the appropriate costs order should be
The Claimant may reply within 14 days of service
The Defendant may file a response to the Claimant’s reply within 7 days
Written submissions limited to 2 pages of A4 in normal font. These submissions must identify the
issues/reasons why the parties cannot agree, identify the amount of costs in issue, state the relief sought
in the claim form and the relief obtained and address how the claim and the basis of its settlement fit the
principles of 
M v Croydon 
and 
Tesfay 
(and presumably subsequent Court of Appeal authority)
 
11kbw.com
 
10
 
Costs after a substantive hearing
 
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
 
r
u
l
e
:
 
c
o
s
t
s
 
f
o
l
l
o
w
 
t
h
e
 
e
v
e
n
t
,
 
s
e
e
 
C
P
R
 
4
4
.
3
(
2
)
(
a
)
Who is the successful party: 
R (Hunt) v North Somerset Council 
[2015] 1 WLR 3575: if the Claimant
establishes illegality, he/she is generally regarded as the successful party even if no relief is granted
 
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
 
f
o
r
 
d
e
p
a
r
t
i
n
g
 
f
r
o
m
 
t
h
e
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
 
r
u
l
e
Unsuccessful ground of challenge or defence: eg 
Hunt 
but cf 
Woods 
[2019] EWHC 3631 (Admin)
 
Conduct of the parties: eg failure to reply to pre-action protocol letter, 
Aegis Group Plc 
[2005] EWHC 1468
 
Unreasonable failure to engage in ADR: 
Halsey, Crawford 
[2014] EWHC 1197 (Admin)
 
Claims brought in the public interest
 
Offers to settle: 
Hemming 
[2013] EWCA Civ 591, 
London Oratory School 
[2015] EWHC 1155 (Admin)
 
 
 
11kbw.com
 
11
 
In 
R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner 
[2004] 1 WLR 2739, the Court of
Appeal held that, unless it has acted improperly or has actively participated in the
challenge, a court or tribunal is not required to pay the costs of rectifying a judicial
act (whether by way of judicial review or appeal).
 
Needless to say, there is an abundance of case-law concerning the identification
of judicial acts, what is meant by the maintenance of neutrality, and what is meant
by acting improperly.
 
The Court of Appeal in 
R (Gudanaviciene) v First-tier Tribunal 
[2017] 1 WLR 4095
applied 
Davies 
when a claim is settled
 
Courts and tribunals (1)
 
Courts and Tribunals (2)
 
R (Gourlay) v Parole Board
 [2017] EWCA Civ 1003
Application of 
Davies 
principle to The Parole Board
 
Court of Appeal held that the reasoning applied to challenges to decisions of
the Parole Board
 
CA rejected the Claimant’s argument to the effect that 
Davies
 had to be read in
the light of 
M v Croydon
 
Appeal listed before the Supreme Court
 
11kbw.com
 
13
 
Wasted Costs
 
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
5
1
(
6
)
 
S
e
n
i
o
r
 
C
o
u
r
t
s
 
A
c
t
 
1
9
8
1
 
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
Acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently
Conduct caused a party to incur unnecessary costs
In all the circumstances just
 
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
Examples: 
MB 
[2006] EWHC 639 (Admin), 
Grimshaw 
 [2013] EWHC
4504 (Admin)
 
11kbw.com
 
14
 
Payments on account
 
CPR 44.2(8) Where the Court orders costs subject to detailed
assessment it will order the party to pay a reasonable sum on
account of costs unless there is a good reason not to do so.
 
Far easier to determine the “reasonable sum” if the judge has heard
the claim
 
Applicable to judicial review claims: see 
R (The Governing Body of
the London Oratory School) v The Schools Adjudicator 
[2015] EWHC
1155 (Admin)
 
 
11kbw.com
 
15
 
Security for costs
 
The Court has a power pursuant to CPR 25.13 to make an order for security for
costs if one of the conditions set out in CPR 25.13(2) are met
 
Such applications generally rare in judicial review claims
 
The main situation were such an order is likely to be made is when the Claimant
is a company set up by guarantee that has been specifically incorporated for the
purposes of bringing the claim as such a company is unlikely to have any assets,
eg 
R v Leicestershire County Council, ex p Blackfordby and Boothcorpe Action
Group Ltd 
[2001] Env LR 2 (p 35)
 
11kbw.com
 
16
 
Costs in judicial reviews in the Upper Tribunal
 
Section 29 Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
 
Rule 10, Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
 
2 options: same approach as Administrative Court (general rule unsuccessful party pays the
successful party’s costs) or same approach as FTT and UT generally (no order as to costs unless
unreasonable)
 
Limited case law but broadly, the UT adopts the same approach as the Administrative Court
 
Settled claims apply 
M v Croydon
, see 
Nwankwo 
[2018] 1 WRL 2641 and 
TH (Iran) 
[2013] EWCA
Civ 1027
 
Wasted Costs: 
SN 
[2015] UKUT 227 and 
Okondu 
[2014] UKUT 377
 
11kbw.com
 
17
 
Part 2: Contents
 
11kbw.com
 
 
 
 
11kbw.com
 
J
R
 
C
O
S
T
C
A
P
P
I
N
G
O
R
D
E
R
S
 
19
 
1. JR Cost capping orders
 
11kbw.com
 
20
 
1. CCO: what meant by “judicial review proceedings”
 
11kbw.com
 
21
 
1. Costs capping orders: three conditions (similar to PCOs)
 
11kbw.com
 
22
 
1. Public Interest Proceedings
 
How will Court determine whether proceedings are “public interest
proceedings”?  Court MUST have regard to factors – not determinative
 
Section 88(8) - ”Include” – not exhaustive list
 
Number of people likely to be directly affected if relief is granted to the
applicant for JR
 
How significant the effect on those people is likely to be; and
 
Whether the proceedings involve consideration of a point of law of general
public importance (an “obvious Supreme Court point”?)
 
1. JRCCOs: Factors court must have regard (s89(1))
 
11kbw.com
 
24
 
1. CCO: Reciprocal Costs Cap
 
11kbw.com
 
25
 
2. JRCCOs: Procedure
 
 
 
2. JRCCOs: Procedure
 
If D wishes to resist the making of the JRCCO - set out its reasons in
the AoS
 
Any representations on a reciprocal costs cap (capping both parties’
costs) - made in the AoS
 
C usually liable for D’s costs in successfully resisting application for
JRCCO
 
If J grants permission to apply for JR on the papers, will go on to
consider whether to grant JR CCO. If refused on papers, C can
request that decision on JRCCO be reconsidered at a hearing (only
revisited if “exceptional circumstances” now doubted)
 
2. JRCCOs: Procedure
 
If C is a body corporate - demonstrate that it is likely to have financial
resources available to meet liabilities arising in connection with
proceedings?
 
If it cannot, court consider giving directions for provision of information
about members and ability to provide financial support for purpose of JR
 
If C is unincorporated association, may have security for costs issue
 
If C has sought oral hearing to reconsider refusal of JRCCO, C will usually
be liable for D’s costs incurred in resisting the JRCCO.
 
Appn for JRCCO can be made at any time, not just when lodging the
claim. But this is discouraged by the court
 
3. CCO examples: 
Beety
 
R
 
(
B
e
e
t
y
)
 
v
 
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
M
i
d
w
i
f
e
r
y
 
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
 
[
2
0
1
7
]
 
E
W
H
C
 
3
5
7
9
 
(
A
d
m
i
n
)
 
Independent midwives in private practice. NMC decided professional
indemnity arrangements not sufficient
 
C argued issue was important to all midwives and other healthcare
professionals and to pregnant women they helped. NMC argued issued
affected only about 70 midwives out of 43,000.
 
Identify “the issue” by reference to statements of case (claim and defence)
 
Did not involve a “point of law of general public importance”
 
CCO warranted, even though case marginal on public interest point
 
3. CCO examples: 
Beety
 
Those impacted – C midwives and other IMUK members directly affected.
Small proportion of overall midwives, but were significantly affected
 
Potential clients and families – not directly affected
 
C would withdraw if no cap. Reasonable to do so. NMC costs approx. £250k,
plus own legal costs. Would bankrupt the individual claimants
 
NMC had substantial assets, £41 million in bank.
 
Individual Cs not contributed; members contributed, crowdfunded £25k, IMUK
pledged all its resources (£40k)
 
C’s lawyers were not acting pro bono (CFA on reduced rates). Not fair on
public law solicitors to require them to do so
 
 
3. CCO examples: 
Beety
 
 
Independent midwives earned modest incomes. If matter important to them,
then right that they make a larger contribution than they had so far.
 
CCO warranted. Approx 50 members of IMUK had not contributed. If each
contributed further £100, further £5,000 could be raised, so cap should be
£25,000.
 
Reciprocal cap - £65,000
 
 
3. CCO Examples : 
Hawking
 
R
 
(
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
 
H
a
w
k
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
o
t
h
e
r
s
)
 
v
 
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
 
o
f
 
S
t
a
t
e
 
f
o
r
 
H
e
a
l
t
h
 
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
 
C
a
r
e
 
a
n
d
 
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
H
e
a
l
t
h
 
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
 
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
 
B
o
a
r
d
 
(
N
H
S
E
n
g
l
a
n
d
)
 
[
2
0
1
8
]
 
E
W
H
C
 
9
8
9
 
(
A
d
m
i
n
)
 
Introduction of Accountable Care Organisations. CCO refused on the papers –
C crowdfunded £160k, target of another £100k.
 
No test of exceptionality – unrestricted right to set aside, vary or discharge
order made on the papers
 
Passage in Admin Court guide just meant that claimants should not expect
paper decisions to be overturned regularly. No need for exceptional or
compelling reasons before making an order which was refused on the papers
 
Dispensed with need for evidence on resources to be served on D (r.46.17(3))
 
 
3. CCO examples: 
Hawking
 
Fact permission granted did not automatically mean public interest test met
 
Considerable public interest in decision making process that led to ACOs. BUT
D agreement to consult did reduce public interest test.
 
Some of concerns of transparency and excess of power remain high public
interest even if also addressed in the consultation
 
Cs individuals, facing potentially open ended costs liabilities, where D’s costs
estimates are very high. D also facing significant costs, given CFA
 
C would not continue with the claim in absence of a JRCCO.
 
Claim brought out of public spiritedness. Prepared to meet substantial
proportion of D’s costs through crowdfunding
. 
Unreasonable for them to bear
burden of high degree of financial risk. Acted reasonably in not continuing
 
3. Terms of CCO: 
Hawking
 
11kbw.com
 
34
 
3. CCO examples: 
We Love Hackney
 
 
R
 
(
W
e
 
L
o
v
e
 
H
a
c
k
n
e
y
 
L
t
d
)
 
v
 
H
a
c
k
n
e
y
L
B
C
 
[
2
0
1
9
]
 
E
W
H
C
 
1
0
0
7
 
(
A
d
m
i
n
)
 
JR claim of revised licensing policies
in Hackney
 
Revised Special Policy Areas and
changed core hours policy for licensed
premises in Hackney. C objected to
general rule alcohol no longer sold
after midnight on Friday/Saturday
nights and extension of SPAs in
Shoreditch/Dalton
 
Association, incorporated for JR
 
3. CCO examples: 
We Love Hackney
 
3. CCO examples: 
We Love Hackney
 
Must have section 88(8) factors in mind, but can have regard to other factors
 
Section 88(8)(a) mentions persons directly affected by grant of relief, but court
can also consider those indirectly affected
 
Crowdfunding target of £20k met. Continuing to crowdfund to meet stretch
target of £53k.
 
Not a public interest claim
 
Essential challenge – LA failed to have regard to the PSED in formulating its
SLP
 
Local issues framed by reference to local government policy might in principle
raise issues of general importance. But argument here was specific to the
facts of the case
 
3. CCO examples: 
We Love Hackney
 
No point of law of general public importance
 
Key principles on PSED all well established. Just applying those to the facts of
this case. What D did or did not do in formulating its policy
 
Failure to take account of relevant considerations – tied to facts of the case
 
No general principle of law on which the parties disagreed
 
“likely to be directly affected” – do not include anyone works in licensed
premises, goes for late night drink, wishes at some stage to invest in activities
in Hackney. Too broad
 
Those who are directly affected – effect hard to measure. Community not
speak with uniform voice. Difficulties in measuring direct effect reduces weight
of this factor. Indirectly affected, even more so
 
3. CCO examples: 
We Love Hackney
 
Industry driven campaign with resources to resurrect challenge if this case did
not proceed? D produced evidence about the directors of the company–
successful individuals with access to considerable resources. Two of directors
had commercial interest in the outcome of the litigation
 
Accepted claim would be withdrawn if no CCO
 
BUT not reasonable to do so absent compulsion to withdraw through
impecuniosity
 
 
A number of well-resourced individuals have chosen to litigate the claim via an
 
impecunious company which has taken possession of funds donated by members of the
 
public. Given their individual and cumulative financial resources, I 
 
infer that the directors
 
and other backers do not want to fund the litigation beyond the level of third party
 
support, rather than that they are incapable of doing so. I do not accept on the evidence
 
before me that the claimant would be forced to withdraw the claim through
 
impecuniosity
.”
 
4. Costs reduction
 
R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 
[2020] EWCA
Civ 363
 
JR of refusal of HMG to issue a non-gendered passport
 
Parties agreed a mutual costs cap of £3,000.
 
JR claim dismissed. No breach of Article 8, but found Article 8(1) engaged.  C
ordered to pay SoS’s costs, reduced by 33%. J applied reduction to capped
costs
 
SoS appealed against costs order - should have applied reduction to actual
costs, not capped costs
 
CA dismissed SoS appeal.
 
4. Costs reduction
 
11kbw.com
 
41
 
5. Revoking a JRCCO
 
11kbw.com
 
42
 
5. Revoking a JRCCO
 
No specific statutory power to revoke/vary - CPR rule 3.17
 
Admin Court Guide says where court reconsiders at a hearing whether
or not to make a JRCCO, the paper decision should only be revisited
in exceptional circumstances
 
Harvey 
– no authority for this. Failure to give full and frank disclosure,
failure comply with obligations of Act, founds jurisdiction for Court to
review decision it has made
 
Cited §31 of 
Buglife
 
No general power to revisit decision on CCO
 
 
 
11kbw.com
 
C
O
S
T
S
 
O
R
D
E
R
S
A
N
D
 
L
E
G
A
L
 
A
I
D
 
44
 
1. Orders in favour of legally aided Cs
 
Regulation 21 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013
 
Amount of costs to be paid under a legally aided party’s costs order or
costs agreement must be determined as if that party were not legally
aided
 
Reg. 21(4) - amount of costs is not limited, by any rule of law which
limits the costs recoverable by a party to proceedings to the amount
the party is liable to pay their representatives, to the amount payable
to the provider in accordance with the legal aid arrangements
 
Legally aided C to recover costs at his lawyer’s ordinary commercial
rates (not those paid under legal aid regime)
 
 
 
 
 
1. Orders in favour of legally aided Cs
 
ZN (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 
[2018]
EWCA Civ 1059
 
Discussion of comments in 
JFS 
about the impact of not recovering
costs on lawyers who undertake publicly funded work.
 
Fact that one party is legally aided could be taken into account when
deciding on an award of costs, but it is unlikely to affect the outcome
 
See also 
R (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2016] EWHC 803 (Admin)
 
When assessing costs, court can take into account fact lawyers doing
publicly funded work might not recover their costs at a commercial rate
 
2. Orders against legally aided Cs
 
 
2. Costs in High Court
 
1. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s reasonable costs of the claim, to
be subject of a detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.
 
2. The Claimant’s liability to pay costs under paragraph (1) shall not be
enforced save following and in accordance with a determination by the
costs judge of the amount which it is reasonable for the Claimant to pay in
accordance with section 26(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and
Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
 
3. The Claimant’s costs of the claim shall be the subject of detailed
assessment in accordance with the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations
2013
 
2. Costs in High Court
 
In principle, costs follows the event – C ordered to pay D’s costs
 
Section 26(1) of LASPO – costs ordered against an individual in
receipt of legal aid in civil proceedings must not exceed the amount (if
any) which it is reasonable for the individual to pay having regard to all
the circumstances, including (a) the financial resources of all of the
parties to the proceedings; and (b) their conduct in connection with the
dispute
 
Regulations determine what is reasonable - Civil Legal Aid (Costs)
Regulations 2013
 
Assessment of resources – regulation 13
 
 
 
2. Costs against the LC in High Court
 
Regulation 10 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013
 
Amount individual ordered to pay under s26 of LASPO less than full
costs
 
Regulation 10(2) – court may make an order for payment by the Lord
Chancellor to the non-legally aided party of the whole/any part of costs
incurred by that party (other than costs LA party is required to pay
under s26)
 
Four conditions
 
 
 
2. Costs against the LC in High Court
 
11kbw.com
 
51
 
2. Costs against the LC in CA/SC
 
1.
The Appellant is to pay such of the Respondent’s costs of the appeal
assessed on the standard basis if not agreed, as may be determined
pursuant to section 26(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment
of Offenders Act 2012 and regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs)
Regulations 2013
 
2.
The Lord Chancellor shall pay such of the Respondent’s costs of the
appeal, to be assessed on a standard basis if not agreed, as are not to
be paid by the Appellant pursuant to paragraph (1) above, pursuant to
regulation 10(2) of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013
 
 
2. Costs against LC in CA/SC
 
11kbw.com
 
53
 
 
 
 
Q
&
A
 
 
Andrew Sharland QC
       
Joanne Clement
Andrew.Sharland@11kbw.com
  
   
   
Joanne.Clement@11kbw.com
 
11kbw.com
 
54
Slide Note
Embed
Share

This article provides detailed information on the costs involved for defendants in legal cases, including the starting point for cost allocation, costs at different stages of the legal process, and considerations for recovery of costs. It covers aspects such as costs at the pre-action stage, costs at the permission stage, costs on settlement and discontinuance, and more. The content outlines the general rules and procedures related to cost allocation in legal matters, offering a comprehensive guide for those navigating the legal system.


Uploaded on Jul 22, 2024 | 4 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Costs for Defendants Andrew Sharland QC & Joanne Clement 15 April 2020 3 July 2019

  2. 2 Contents Costs: The starting point Costs at the pre-action stage Costs at the permission stage Costs on settlement and discontinuance Costs after a substantive hearing Costs against Courts and Tribunals Costs in judicial review claims in the Upper Tribunal 11kbw.com

  3. 3 The starting point Section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 44 Broad discretion as to who pays and how much General rule is that the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the successful party s costs 11kbw.com

  4. 4 Costs at the pre-action stage If as a result of pre-action correspondence from a potential Claimant, a public body withdraws or reconsiders the decision before a claim is issued there will be no costs recovery The Court has no power to make an award of costs unless and until a claim is commenced, see s 51 SCA 1981. Courts deprecate the pursuit of litigation solely to recover costs 11kbw.com

  5. 5 Costs at the permission stage (1) If permission granted CPR 44.13(1A)(b) Claimant's costs in the case but can seek an alternative order If permission is refused on the papers Defendant usually entitled to reasonable costs of drafting acknowledgement of service and summary grounds of resistance ( acknowledgement costs ), see Mount Cook, Ewing and Roundham and Larling Parish Council If multiple defendants and interested parties, each one is generally entitled to recover their acknowledgement costs subject to proportionality: Campaign to Protect Rural England v SSCLG [2020] 1 WLR 352 However generally Defendants and Interested Parties are not entitled to recover preparation costs , ie all costs incurred other than acknowledgement costs , see Davey [2008] 1 WLR 878 Procedure: request in summary grounds of resistance supported by a Costs Schedule. Judge, if refusing permission on the papers, should include a decision whether to award costs in principle or not. The Claimant has 14 days to respond in writing with other parties having 14 days to reply. 11kbw.com

  6. 6 Costs at the permission stage (2) If permission is refused after an oral hearing Defendants and Interested Parties are not normally entitled to the costs of attending the hearing Exceptions: Hopeless claims Abuse of procedure: political means Claimant has had the benefit of a full argument (eg rolled up hearings) Unsuccessful claimant has substantial resources Recent example: R (Wilson) v Prime Minister [2019] 1 WLR 4174 Day long permission hearing a claim challenging the decision to notify the EU that the UK intended to leave. Hopeless and claimants were inappropriately pursuing what was effectively a political campaign through the courts 11kbw.com

  7. 7 Discontinuance, withdrawal and settlement (1) Discontinuance a unilateral termination of a claim by the Claimant. Conceptually distinct from withdrawal by consent or settlement, see R (National Association of Probation Officers) v SSJ [2014] EWHC 4706 CPR 38.6 provides that unless the court orders otherwise, the claimant is liable for the costs of the defendant incurred on or before the date on which the notice of discontinuance was served on it. R (Smoke Club Ltd) v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2014] Costs LO 123: relationship between Mount Cook and CPR 38.6 Nelson s Yard Management Co v Eziefula [2013] C P Rep 29: departure from usual approach as a result of Defendant s unreasonable conduct 11kbw.com

  8. 8 Discontinuance, withdrawal and settlement (2) Withdrawal/settlement If the Claimant withdraws claim and there has been no relevant change of position by the Defendant, the Claimant likely to be ordered to pay the Defendant s costs. If there is a change of position by the Defendant the appropriate costs order will usually depend on the extent to which the Claimant has achieved the result that he or she was seeking. The Court of Appeal in M v Croydon [2012] 1 WLR 2607 suggested that there were three broad categories of case: Where the Claimant has been wholly successful in terms of the relief sought the Claimant will generally recover all of his/her costs unless there is a good reason to the contrary. Where a Claimant has only succeeded in part, the judge will normally determine how reasonable the Claimant was in pursuing the unsuccessful relief and how important the unsuccessful relief was compared with the successful relief. Where the compromise does not actually reflect the Claimant s claims the default position is that there should be no order as to costs. 11kbw.com

  9. 9 Discontinuance, withdrawal and settlement (3) M v Croydon has led to a large number of costs challenges including: Baxter [2016] 1 Costs LO 37 Tesfay [2016] 1 WLR 4853 ZN [2018] EWCA Civ 1059 Khan [2018] EWCA Civ 1684 RL [2019] 1 WLR 224 Medway Soft Drinks Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1041 Parveen [2020] 4 WLR 53 11kbw.com

  10. 10 Discontinuance, withdrawal and settlement: Procedure See Administrative Court Office Guidance April 2016 reproduced in Annex 5 to The Administrative Court: Judicial Review Guide, July 2019 The parties should seek to reach agreement on costs wherever possible If the parties cannot agree: Within 28 days of the consent order, the Defendant may file with the Court and serve on the other parties, submissions as to what the appropriate costs order should be The Claimant may reply within 14 days of service The Defendant may file a response to the Claimant s reply within 7 days Written submissions limited to 2 pages of A4 in normal font. These submissions must identify the issues/reasons why the parties cannot agree, identify the amount of costs in issue, state the relief sought in the claim form and the relief obtained and address how the claim and the basis of its settlement fit the principles of M v Croydon and Tesfay (and presumably subsequent Court of Appeal authority) 11kbw.com

  11. 11 Costs after a substantive hearing General rule: costs follow the event, see CPR 44.3(2)(a) Who is the successful party: R (Hunt) v North Somerset Council [2015] 1 WLR 3575: if the Claimant establishes illegality, he/she is generally regarded as the successful party even if no relief is granted Grounds for departing from the general rule Unsuccessful ground of challenge or defence: eg Hunt but cf Woods [2019] EWHC 3631 (Admin) Conduct of the parties: eg failure to reply to pre-action protocol letter, Aegis Group Plc [2005] EWHC 1468 Unreasonable failure to engage in ADR: Halsey, Crawford [2014] EWHC 1197 (Admin) Claims brought in the public interest Offers to settle: Hemming [2013] EWCA Civ 591, London Oratory School [2015] EWHC 1155 (Admin) 11kbw.com

  12. Courts and tribunals (1) In R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] 1 WLR 2739, the Court of Appeal held that, unless it has acted improperly or has actively participated in the challenge, a court or tribunal is not required to pay the costs of rectifying a judicial act (whether by way of judicial review or appeal). Needless to say, there is an abundance of case-law concerning the identification of judicial acts, what is meant by the maintenance of neutrality, and what is meant by acting improperly. The Court of Appeal in R (Gudanaviciene) v First-tier Tribunal [2017] 1 WLR 4095 applied Davies when a claim is settled

  13. 13 Courts and Tribunals (2) R (Gourlay) v Parole Board [2017] EWCA Civ 1003 Application of Davies principle to The Parole Board Court of Appeal held that the reasoning applied to challenges to decisions of the Parole Board CA rejected the Claimant s argument to the effect that Davies had to be read in the light of M v Croydon Appeal listed before the Supreme Court 11kbw.com

  14. 14 Wasted Costs Section 51(6) Senior Courts Act 1981 Grounds Acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently Conduct caused a party to incur unnecessary costs In all the circumstances just Procedure Examples: MB [2006] EWHC 639 (Admin), Grimshaw [2013] EWHC 4504 (Admin) 11kbw.com

  15. 15 Payments on account CPR 44.2(8) Where the Court orders costs subject to detailed assessment it will order the party to pay a reasonable sum on account of costs unless there is a good reason not to do so. Far easier to determine the reasonable sum if the judge has heard the claim Applicable to judicial review claims: see R (The Governing Body of the London Oratory School) v The Schools Adjudicator [2015] EWHC 1155 (Admin) 11kbw.com

  16. 16 Security for costs The Court has a power pursuant to CPR 25.13 to make an order for security for costs if one of the conditions set out in CPR 25.13(2) are met Such applications generally rare in judicial review claims The main situation were such an order is likely to be made is when the Claimant is a company set up by guarantee that has been specifically incorporated for the purposes of bringing the claim as such a company is unlikely to have any assets, eg R v Leicestershire County Council, ex p Blackfordby and Boothcorpe Action Group Ltd [2001] Env LR 2 (p 35) 11kbw.com

  17. 17 Costs in judicial reviews in the Upper Tribunal Section 29 Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Rule 10, Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 2 options: same approach as Administrative Court (general rule unsuccessful party pays the successful party s costs) or same approach as FTT and UT generally (no order as to costs unless unreasonable) Limited case law but broadly, the UT adopts the same approach as the Administrative Court Settled claims apply M v Croydon, see Nwankwo [2018] 1 WRL 2641 and TH (Iran) [2013] EWCA Civ 1027 Wasted Costs: SN [2015] UKUT 227 and Okondu [2014] UKUT 377 11kbw.com

  18. Part 2: Contents JRCCOs and considerations for defendants Costs in favour of legally aided parties Costs against legally aided parties 11kbw.com

  19. 19 JR COST CAPPING ORDERS 11kbw.com

  20. 20 1. JR Cost capping orders Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Section VI of rule 46 CPR Sections 88-90 (s90 Aarhus costs) CCO: Order limiting or removing the liability of a party to JR proceedings to pay another party s costs in connection with any stage of the proceedings CCO: can only be made if permission to apply for JR has been granted 11kbw.com

  21. 21 1. CCO: what meant by judicial review proceedings (1) Application for leave to apply for JR; application for JR (2) Application for leave to appeal from (1) and proceedings on appeal from (1) 11kbw.com

  22. 22 1. Costs capping orders: three conditions (similar to PCOs) An issue that is the subject of the proceedings is of general public importance The public interest requires the issue to be resolved Proceedings likely to provide appropriate means of resolving it Proceedings are public interest proceedings ONLY if: In the absence of the order, the applicant for JR would withdraw the application for JR or cease to participate Similar to requirement for granting a Protective Costs Order It would be reasonable for the applicant for JR to do so Similar to requirement for granting a Protective Costs Order 11kbw.com

  23. 1. Public Interest Proceedings How will Court determine whether proceedings are public interest proceedings ? Court MUST have regard to factors not determinative Section 88(8) - Include not exhaustive list Number of people likely to be directly affected if relief is granted to the applicant for JR How significant the effect on those people is likely to be; and Whether the proceedings involve consideration of a point of law of general public importance (an obvious Supreme Court point ?)

  24. 24 1. JRCCOs: Factors court must have regard (s89(1)) Financial resources of parties, including resources of person who provides/ may provide financial support Extent to which applicant likely to benefit if relief is granted to applicant Extent to which supporter likely to benefit if relief is granted to applicant Legal representatives for applicant acting free of charge Applicant is appropriate person to represent the interests of others or the public interest 11kbw.com

  25. 25 1. CCO: Reciprocal Costs Cap CCO that limits or removes liability of applicant for JR to pay the costs of another party to proceedings if relief is not granted to the applicant MUST ALSO limit or remove liability of other party to pay applicant s costs (section 89(2)) Not necessarily same amount 11kbw.com

  26. 2. JRCCOs: Procedure Appn normally contained in claim form or accompany it Evidence why JRCCO should be made, addressing 3 conditions Summary of C s financial resources assets, liabilities, income, expenditure Any financial support any person provided/likely to provide Costs (and disbursements) which C considers parties are likely to incur in future conduct of proceedings

  27. 2. JRCCOs: Procedure If D wishes to resist the making of the JRCCO - set out its reasons in the AoS Any representations on a reciprocal costs cap (capping both parties costs) - made in the AoS C usually liable for D s costs in successfully resisting application for JRCCO If J grants permission to apply for JR on the papers, will go on to consider whether to grant JR CCO. If refused on papers, C can request that decision on JRCCO be reconsidered at a hearing (only revisited if exceptional circumstances now doubted)

  28. 2. JRCCOs: Procedure If C is a body corporate - demonstrate that it is likely to have financial resources available to meet liabilities arising in connection with proceedings? If it cannot, court consider giving directions for provision of information about members and ability to provide financial support for purpose of JR If C is unincorporated association, may have security for costs issue If C has sought oral hearing to reconsider refusal of JRCCO, C will usually be liable for D s costs incurred in resisting the JRCCO. Appn for JRCCO can be made at any time, not just when lodging the claim. But this is discouraged by the court

  29. 3. CCO examples: Beety R (Beety) v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2017] EWHC 3579 (Admin) Independent midwives in private practice. NMC decided professional indemnity arrangements not sufficient C argued issue was important to all midwives and other healthcare professionals and to pregnant women they helped. NMC argued issued affected only about 70 midwives out of 43,000. Identify the issue by reference to statements of case (claim and defence) Did not involve a point of law of general public importance CCO warranted, even though case marginal on public interest point

  30. 3. CCO examples: Beety Those impacted C midwives and other IMUK members directly affected. Small proportion of overall midwives, but were significantly affected Potential clients and families not directly affected C would withdraw if no cap. Reasonable to do so. NMC costs approx. 250k, plus own legal costs. Would bankrupt the individual claimants NMC had substantial assets, 41 million in bank. Individual Cs not contributed; members contributed, crowdfunded 25k, IMUK pledged all its resources ( 40k) C s lawyers were not acting pro bono (CFA on reduced rates). Not fair on public law solicitors to require them to do so

  31. 3. CCO examples: Beety Independent midwives earned modest incomes. If matter important to them, then right that they make a larger contribution than they had so far. CCO warranted. Approx 50 members of IMUK had not contributed. If each contributed further 100, further 5,000 could be raised, so cap should be 25,000. Reciprocal cap - 65,000

  32. 3. CCO Examples : Hawking R (Stephen Hawking and others) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and National Health Services Commissioning Board (NHS England) [2018] EWHC 989 (Admin) Introduction of Accountable Care Organisations. CCO refused on the papers C crowdfunded 160k, target of another 100k. No test of exceptionality unrestricted right to set aside, vary or discharge order made on the papers Passage in Admin Court guide just meant that claimants should not expect paper decisions to be overturned regularly. No need for exceptional or compelling reasons before making an order which was refused on the papers Dispensed with need for evidence on resources to be served on D (r.46.17(3))

  33. 3. CCO examples: Hawking Fact permission granted did not automatically mean public interest test met Considerable public interest in decision making process that led to ACOs. BUT D agreement to consult did reduce public interest test. Some of concerns of transparency and excess of power remain high public interest even if also addressed in the consultation Cs individuals, facing potentially open ended costs liabilities, where D s costs estimates are very high. D also facing significant costs, given CFA C would not continue with the claim in absence of a JRCCO. Claim brought out of public spiritedness. Prepared to meet substantial proportion of D s costs through crowdfunding. Unreasonable for them to bear burden of high degree of financial risk. Acted reasonably in not continuing

  34. 34 3. Terms of CCO: Hawking Public funding on both sides Crowdfunding for C; public funding for D Set cap at level not artificially limit either C/D efforts or expenditure Enable claim to be heard Case distinguished Principal purpose of proceedings acutely personal C had very substantial means D s projected costs 40,000 Litvinenko Reciprocal cost cap Crowdfunded 160k. Hope for another 100k C s estimated costs 115k Cost cap of 80k for both defendants Reciprocal cap of 115k 11kbw.com

  35. 3. CCO examples: We Love Hackney R (We Love Hackney Ltd) v Hackney LBC [2019] EWHC 1007 (Admin) JR claim of revised licensing policies in Hackney Revised Special Policy Areas and changed core hours policy for licensed premises in Hackney. C objected to general rule alcohol no longer sold after midnight on Friday/Saturday nights and extension of SPAs in Shoreditch/Dalton Association, incorporated for JR

  36. 3. CCO examples: We Love Hackney Not public interest proceedings No point of law of general public importance Company itself impecunious Number of wealthy directors and backers who could fund the claim Commercial interest in the litigation

  37. 3. CCO examples: We Love Hackney Must have section 88(8) factors in mind, but can have regard to other factors Section 88(8)(a) mentions persons directly affected by grant of relief, but court can also consider those indirectly affected Crowdfunding target of 20k met. Continuing to crowdfund to meet stretch target of 53k. Not a public interest claim Essential challenge LA failed to have regard to the PSED in formulating its SLP Local issues framed by reference to local government policy might in principle raise issues of general importance. But argument here was specific to the facts of the case

  38. 3. CCO examples: We Love Hackney No point of law of general public importance Key principles on PSED all well established. Just applying those to the facts of this case. What D did or did not do in formulating its policy Failure to take account of relevant considerations tied to facts of the case No general principle of law on which the parties disagreed likely to be directly affected do not include anyone works in licensed premises, goes for late night drink, wishes at some stage to invest in activities in Hackney. Too broad Those who are directly affected effect hard to measure. Community not speak with uniform voice. Difficulties in measuring direct effect reduces weight of this factor. Indirectly affected, even more so

  39. 3. CCO examples: We Love Hackney Industry driven campaign with resources to resurrect challenge if this case did not proceed? D produced evidence about the directors of the company successful individuals with access to considerable resources. Two of directors had commercial interest in the outcome of the litigation Accepted claim would be withdrawn if no CCO BUT not reasonable to do so absent compulsion to withdraw through impecuniosity A number of well-resourced individuals have chosen to litigate the claim via an impecunious company which has taken possession of funds donated by members of the public. Given their individual and cumulative financial resources, I infer that the directors and other backers do not want to fund the litigation beyond the level of third party support, rather than that they are incapable of doing so. I do not accept on the evidence before me that the claimant would be forced to withdraw the claim through impecuniosity.

  40. 4. Costs reduction R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 363 JR of refusal of HMG to issue a non-gendered passport Parties agreed a mutual costs cap of 3,000. JR claim dismissed. No breach of Article 8, but found Article 8(1) engaged. C ordered to pay SoS s costs, reduced by 33%. J applied reduction to capped costs SoS appealed against costs order - should have applied reduction to actual costs, not capped costs CA dismissed SoS appeal.

  41. 41 4. Costs reduction Public policy behind CCOs promote access to justice in JR claims with a public interest Know maximum costs exposure costs actually incur irrecoverable Court not required to award costs at conclusion of hearing as though cap did not exist Lead to lax practice / unreasonable litigation conduct if party knew could always recover full amount of capped costs, even if factors justify substantial reduction in uncapped costs 11kbw.com

  42. 42 5. Revoking a JRCCO R (Harvey) v Leighton Linsdale Town Council [2019] EWHC 760 (Admin) CCO granted, LA applied to set aside/vary it Obligation to disclose financial resources included resources that might not be immediately available / might be able to obtain in due course (such as C s potential inheritance in 12/18 months) Failure to disclose inheritance was material non-disclosure. Not deliberate. Information might have affected J decision. CCO set aside and new one imposed at a higher level ( 20k) 11kbw.com

  43. 5. Revoking a JRCCO No specific statutory power to revoke/vary - CPR rule 3.17 Admin Court Guide says where court reconsiders at a hearing whether or not to make a JRCCO, the paper decision should only be revisited in exceptional circumstances Harvey no authority for this. Failure to give full and frank disclosure, failure comply with obligations of Act, founds jurisdiction for Court to review decision it has made Cited 31 of Buglife No general power to revisit decision on CCO

  44. 44 COSTS ORDERS AND LEGAL AID 11kbw.com

  45. 1. Orders in favour of legally aided Cs Regulation 21 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013 Amount of costs to be paid under a legally aided party s costs order or costs agreement must be determined as if that party were not legally aided Reg. 21(4) - amount of costs is not limited, by any rule of law which limits the costs recoverable by a party to proceedings to the amount the party is liable to pay their representatives, to the amount payable to the provider in accordance with the legal aid arrangements Legally aided C to recover costs at his lawyer s ordinary commercial rates (not those paid under legal aid regime)

  46. 1. Orders in favour of legally aided Cs ZN (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1059 Discussion of comments in JFS about the impact of not recovering costs on lawyers who undertake publicly funded work. Fact that one party is legally aided could be taken into account when deciding on an award of costs, but it is unlikely to affect the outcome See also R (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 803 (Admin) When assessing costs, court can take into account fact lawyers doing publicly funded work might not recover their costs at a commercial rate

  47. 2. Orders against legally aided Cs Costs protection conferred by LA certificate High Court successful D will not recover costs Different in CA/SC

  48. 2. Costs in High Court 1. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant s reasonable costs of the claim, to be subject of a detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed. 2. The Claimant s liability to pay costs under paragraph (1) shall not be enforced save following and in accordance with a determination by the costs judge of the amount which it is reasonable for the Claimant to pay in accordance with section 26(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. 3. The Claimant s costs of the claim shall be the subject of detailed assessment in accordance with the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013

  49. 2. Costs in High Court In principle, costs follows the event C ordered to pay D s costs Section 26(1) of LASPO costs ordered against an individual in receipt of legal aid in civil proceedings must not exceed the amount (if any) which it is reasonable for the individual to pay having regard to all the circumstances, including (a) the financial resources of all of the parties to the proceedings; and (b) their conduct in connection with the dispute Regulations determine what is reasonable - Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013 Assessment of resources regulation 13

  50. 2. Costs against the LC in High Court Regulation 10 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013 Amount individual ordered to pay under s26 of LASPO less than full costs Regulation 10(2) court may make an order for payment by the Lord Chancellor to the non-legally aided party of the whole/any part of costs incurred by that party (other than costs LA party is required to pay under s26) Four conditions

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#