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 High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Ronald, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames [2003] EWHC 2776 (Admin) (07 November 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2776.html
Cite as: [2003] EWHC 2776 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF RONALD | (CLAIMANT) | |
| -v- | ||
| THE LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES | (DEFENDANT) |
____________________
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)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE OWEN: In this matter there will be an order by consent in the terms agreed. The consent order included the direction that the court determine the issue of liability for costs on the basis of the parties' written submissions and the papers.
- In consenting to the appeal being allowed, the respondent conceded that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal had erred in law. It did so principally by reason of a failure on behalf of the respondent authority to supply critical information. In those circumstances, it is plainly appropriate for the respondent to be ordered to pay at least some parts of the appellant's costs.
- By a letter dated 30th September of this year, the appellant's solicitors invited agreement to an order that 75 per cent of the appellant's costs of the appeal be paid by the respondent. The proposal was intended to reflect the fact that the grounds of appeal were not wholly based on the Tribunal's error. That offer, which in my judgment was extremely reasonable, was rejected.
- In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the appropriate order is that the respondent do pay 75 per cent of the appellant's costs of the appeal, and secondly do pay the costs incurred in this costs application, namely the costs incurred after 16th September 2003.
- Thank you.