British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >>
Richardson, R (On the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1921 (19 December 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1921.html
Cite as:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1921
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
|
|
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWCA Civ 1921 |
|
|
C3/2003/1003 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE RICHARDS)
|
|
Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
|
|
|
19th December 2003 |
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN
LORD JUSTICE KEENE
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
____________________
|
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF RICHARDSON |
Claimant/Appellant |
|
-v- |
|
|
NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL |
Defendant/Respondent |
____________________
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
MR R MCCRAKEN QC and MR G JONES (instructed by Messrs Richard Buxton) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR T STRAKER QC (instructed by North Yorkshire County Council Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent
MR J MAURICI (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
JUDGMENT ON COSTS
- LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN: Appeals are an expensive and hazardous process. There can be no conceivable doubt but that the respondent council must have their costs. Stretching our consciences to the uttermost, we limit the costs in favour of the Secretary of State (who strictly might be thought entitled to the entirety of his costs too of contesting this separate issue) to three quarters of his costs, simply on the basis that he has in the event had some profit from the appeal: the law as to the reach of the code has been clarified, and clarified in the event in his interest.
- We could not properly, in our unanimous judgment, make any order more generous towards the appellants. They must pay all but a quarter of the Secretary of State's costs.
______________________________