Gill Henderson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Treacy,Mr Justice Males |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 1092 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2823/2017 |
| Date | 09 May 2018 |
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 1092 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Treacy
Mr Justice Males
Case No: CO/2823/2017
Ms Cathryn McGahey QC and Ms Pamela Rose (instructed by Parry and Welch Solicitors LLP) for the Appellant
Mr George Thomas (instructed by Metropolitan Police Directorate of Legal Services) for the Respondent
COSTS JUDGMENT APPROVED
Judgment was handed down in this matter on 28 March 2018 under Neutral Citation Number [2018] EWHC 666 (Admin). The court invited written submissions on costs. The appellant and respondent claimed costs against one another. One matter raised by the respondent was that if costs were awarded in its favour they should include the cost of kennelling the dog Olive over the period between the district judge's decision and the date of the hearing of the appeal. As a result, we invited further written submissions on this point from both parties.
The court has considered those submissions and now sets out its conclusions on costs. I consider that the respondent should recover the costs of the appeal from the appellant. In my view, the respondent, rather than the appellant, was successful in the appeal. The court recast the single question posed by the district judge into four separate questions. The answer to the first question, relating to who had standing to intervene and contend that the dog was not one to which s.1 of the Act applied, was answered in favour of the respondent. This was the major issue before the court. The answer to the second question was not conclusive either way in this case because it was recognised that in any event there would need to be a further hearing before the district judge. The answer given was a straightforward application of the decision in Webb and in that respect was uncontentious. Insofar as the issue arising from question 2 remained a live one, that was a consequence of the replacement of the original party, Ms Case, by this appellant. It only became clear to the court on the morning of the hearing that there was such a substitution and that the respondent was prepared to proceed on that basis. Moreover, it was the very late submission of evidence by the appellant (referred to at [34] to [36] of the earlier judgment) which will enable the appellant to raise the issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenner Stronge v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...of State recognises that the decisions of the Divisional Court in Webb and Henderson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] EWHC 1092 (Admin) anticipate that a CDO may be made in favour of any “person for the time being in charge” which could include a person who has been respon......
-
R Leslie John Drain v Birmingham Crown Court
...As it happens, a similar point was considered by the Divisional Court (Treacy LJ and Males J) on 9 May 2018 in Henderson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWHC 1092 (Admin) in relation to the costs of kennelling a dangerous dog, pending a challenge to an order for the destr......