England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		18/12/2014

Costs Judgment

Mrs Justice Patterson:

1. At the end of the hearing on 8 October 2014 I reserved my decision on costs in relation to Ground 2 to await written representations by the parties. Both parties have now supplied those representations. Thus judgement deals solely with that issue.
2. Although the defendant raised the issue as to whether the Court should hold a short hearing on the question of costs, in my judgment that would be entirely disproportionate given the original dispute was whether £4,379 should be paid by the claimant to the defendant as costs of disciplinary proceedings taken against her by the Bar Standards Board.
3. I am asked to proceed by way of summary assessment. No costs schedules were available at the hearing on 8 October which lasted for that day. In coming to my decision I have borne the following points in mind:

i) Ground 2 involved a question of jurisdiction the resolution of which would have a bearing on other cases where a similar point was raised.

ii) The original proceedings were regulatory where the defendant was acting as a public regulator to maintain the proper professional standards at the Bar. It is in their interests to have a Ruling on the issue of jurisdiction in relation to costs.

iii) The original dispute involved a small sum of £4,379.

iv) The defendant calculates its costs at £56,690.20 of which it claims £23,329.20 with one half to be paid on account.

v) The substantive judicial review has changed its complexion and continues in relation to the appointments ground.

vi) Davis J (as he then was) made an order on 16 June 2011 that the costs of the Acknowledgement of Service be cost in the case. As the case is or may be proceeding, I make no further order in relation to the Acknowledgement of Service.

vii) The claimant had offered to drop her litigation which, at that time was focused on Ground 2, but that was on the basis that the defendant dropped its claim to the original award of costs before the Tribunal.

viii) My judgment of 8 October 2014 determined that the defendant was entitled to its costs of the disciplinary hearing in the sum claimed. That is to be read in conjunction with this for a full understanding of the case.

4. In all of the circumstances I have concluded that the conventional rules as to costs do not apply here as in the successful party generally has his costs paid.
5. The real interest on the part of the defendant over and above the particular circumstances of this case in the determination of the jurisdiction of whether costs of the disciplinary proceedings were payable is highly material.
6. In the circumstances although I have found in favour of the defendant on the Ground 2 issue which was live before me it would not be proportionate to the sum in issue to order the full amount of costs that they claim. Although the claimant seeks that there be no order for costs all of her offers to discontinue have been contingent upon her not paying the costs that she was ordered to pay at the disciplinary proceedings. In the circumstances that is not an attractive submission either.
7. Bearing in mind the over-riding objective and the overall circumstances of this case in relation to Ground 2 I order that the claimant is to pay to the defendant the costs of the hearing of 8 October 2014 in the sum which I summarily assess at £5,000.