England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

McKeown v Secretary of State [2006] EWCST 671(PC_Costs) (26 April 2006)

Martin Joseph McKeown

-v-

Secretary of State

[2006] 671.PC

APPLICATION FOR COSTS

1. This is an application by the Appellant dated 7th April 2006 and received by the Secretary to the Tribunal on 10th April 2006 for an order for costs subsequent to the decision dated 3rd April 2006 allowing the appeal in accordance with Regulation 33(2).
2. In accordance with Regulation 33(2)(b)(c), the President may, subject to Regulation 24, make a costs order and must consider making one.
3. A costs order is only appropriate if, in the opinion of the President, a party has acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings.
4. The Appellant was asked, in the Order dated 3rd April 2006, to address the issue of whether the Respondent has acted unreasonably in conducting these proceedings, and provide a Schedule of costs incurred in respect of these proceedings.
5. The letter from the Owen-Kenny Partnership, on behalf of the Appellant, encloses a Schedule of costs in the sum of £509.95p.
6. In effect, the claim for costs is because "it would appear that our client's name was placed on the register without due care."
7. The jurisprudence of the Tribunal is relevant to this application. In Ulliott v Secretary of State [Decision on Costs] [2004] 343 PC, the Tribunal said that it cannot be appropriate in the context of a costs application under Regulation 33(2)(b)(c) read with Regulation 24, for the Tribunal to decide on whether the Secretary of State had applied correctly the appropriate test when confirming an individual's name on the list.
8. The only issue therefore is whether the Respondent acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings. The Appeal Form is dated 28th February 2006 and was received by the Tribunal on 3rd March 2006. The Appeal Form was communicated to the Respondent on that day.
9. By letter dated 29th March 2006 received by the Tribunal on 31st March 2006, the Children's Safeguarding Operations Unit (PoCA) wrote to the Tribunal stating that the Secretary of State had decided, in the light of all the information, not to oppose the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the 3rd April 2006 and the Order was communicated that day to the Solicitors acting for the Appellant.
10. The decision taken by the Respondent not to oppose the appeal was made within the twenty working days available to the Respondent in accordance with paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 of the Regulations.
11. In these circumstances, the Respondent did not act unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings, and there can be No Order as to Costs.

NO ORDER AS TO COSTS

His Honour Judge David Pearl

President

26th April 2006.