CO/2728/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 3236 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION  
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2 

Wednesday, 10th December 2003
 
B E F O R E:

MR JUSTICE FORBES 

- - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF TROMANS
(CLAIMANT)

-v- 

CANNOCK CHASE DISTRICT COUNCIL
(DEFENDANT) 
 - - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph 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 HARWOOD (instructed by Hadems) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MISS HANIF (instructed by Cannock Chase District Council) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
 - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MR JUSTICE FORBES:  Mr Harwood, Miss Hanif, I am afraid we have no associate.  If you are content to proceed then I am too. 
2.	Thank you for sending the various suggested corrections to the draft judgment.  I have adopted all the matters that you have drawn to my attention.  For your information, I noticed one further matter which I have altered and there is a slight change of grammar as well.  Paragraph 57 of the judgment, if you would just turn to that, you will see that in the original draft, the first sentence read as follows:  
"Mr Barratt stressed that there was no suggestion there had been any procedural fairness in the way the meeting had been conducted." 
3.	That, plainly, should have been "unfairness" and the fact that it should have been "unfairness" is apparent from paragraph 58 where the wording is, in effect, repeated but this time correctly.  I have changed the word "fairness" to "unfairness" and I have also changed the word "was" to "is" later on in the sentence; changed the tense, in other words, of the verb.  That makes no difference to the sense but I think it makes it grammatically more accurate.  
4.	Unless there is anything either of you want to say about that further correction, I direct that the written judgment handed down by me this morning is to stand as the transcript of my judgment in this matter and, for the reasons contained in that judgment, this application is dismissed.  Are there any further orders that either of you wish me to make? 
5.	MISS HANIF:  I am grateful to my Lord for that judgment.  I have simply one further matter.  The defendants would ask for their costs to be paid by the claimant.  The schedule has been served and should have been filed with the court.
6.	MR JUSTICE FORBES:  Yes, I have received the schedule of costs.  Is there anything you want to say about those costs, Mr Harwood? 
7.	MR HARWOOD:  My Lord, we do not resist the principle of costs, however, the costs should go to detailed assessment.
8.	MR JUSTICE FORBES:  This is the second day of the hearing so if you are not prepared to agree to a summary assessment, I am not going to impose it on you.
9.	MR HARWOOD:  My Lord, I am grateful for that.  It had been agreed yesterday that it would be a detailed assessment.  There seems to have been a change of heart by the other side overnight and I have simply not been able to get instructions on the schedule.
10.	MR JUSTICE FORBES:  Miss Hanif, this is, in fact, the second day of the hearing and, strictly speaking, you are not entitled to a summary assessment unless the other side agree.  Since, for good reason, they are not going to agree, what I shall do is order that the claimants are to pay the defendants' costs, such costs to be assessed on a standard basis if not agreed.  Is there anything else?  Thank you for arriving slightly earlier than usual.