England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

 


Mensah-King v Secretary of State (Costs) [2005] EWCST 529(PC) (31 October 2005)

Sylvester Mensah-King -v- Secretary of State (Costs) [2005] 529.PC DECISION
1. The Secretary of State confirmed the Applicant's name on the Protection of Children Act list (the PoCA list) on 25^th May 2005.
2. The Applicant appealed this decision, and the appeal papers were received by the Secretary to the Tribunal on 19^th July 2005.
3. The papers were sent immediately to the Secretary of State for a Response. By letter received by the Secretary to the Tribunal on 25^th July 2005, the Children's Safeguarding Operations Unit (PoCA) of the Department for Education and Skills informed the Secretary to the Tribunal that "in the light of all the information now before us, the Secretary of State has decided not to oppose this appeal."
4. The appeal was determined in the Applicant's favour by a Decision in accordance with Regulation 33(2) on 27^th July 2005.
5. By letter dated 29^th July 2005, the Applicant seeks an Order for Costs in accordance with Regulation 33(2) and Regulation 24 in the sum of £850.00p.
6. By email dated 24^th August 2005, the Respondent submits that the making of a costs order would be inappropriate. The Respondent submits that the Secretary of State has not acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings.
7. The Applicant responded to the submission from the Respondent by letter dated 24^th October 2005 and received by the Tribunal on 26^th October 2005.
8. The case law from the Tribunal on costs applications when the Respondent withdraws her opposition to an appeal is clear. There is an initial presumption of no order for costs, and the burden of proof rests with the Applicant. The standard of proof is a high one.
9. It has been stated in Ulliott v Secretary of State [Decision on Costs] [2004] 343.PC that it is not appropriate in the context of a costs application when the Respondent has withdrawn her opposition to the appeal, for the Tribunal to decide on whether the Secretary of State had applied correctly the test as laid down in the Protection of Children Act 1999 when confirming an individual's name on the list. It is only when it is shown that the Respondent has behaved unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings that an order for costs may be appropriate.
10. In this case, there was no delay whatsoever by the Respondent. She withdrew her opposition to the appeal within six working days of receiving the appeal forms. She did not behave unreasonably.

Accordingly:

NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

His Honour Judge David Pearl

President

31^st October 2005.