R Loucif v Secretary of State for Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE OUSELEY |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 3640 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 01 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | CO/299/2011 |
[2011] EWHC 3640 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Ouseley
CO/299/2011
Ms R Akther (instructed by Malik & Malik Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Mr C Banner (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is, on its face, a renewed application to apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the failure of the Secretary of State to make a decision on submissions made as long ago as 2005 and 2006 about the claimant's immigration status.
The application for permission came before HHJ Thornton QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge on 4 May 2011. In his decision he concluded that the claim had become academic since the defendant had said that the decision would be made by 8 April 2011 and, in fact, it was made by the end of March 2011. The defendant had invited the claimant to withdraw the claim with no order as to costs. The claimant, effectively, had by now conceded that proceedings were academic but sought a dismissal order with his costs being paid by the defendant.
The judge, recognising that ordinarily costs would not be ordered, considered that this was one of these cases in which it was obvious that the Secretary of State was going to lose, and hence notwithstanding that he dismissed the application for permission, he concluded that it was a case in which costs should be ordered in the claimant's favour against the defendant. The defendant does not at this hearing contest the principle of such an order. The judge then summarily assessed the costs to be paid to the claimant at £800, representing 5 hours work at £160 per hour. These were to be paid within 14 days of the service of the order. At that stage, the judge had not had submissions as to the quantum of costs either from the claimant or from the defendant. It was a summary assessment with no schedule.
The claimant was aggrieved by that order as to costs, contending that a fair order for costs would be much greater, and for the purposes of these proceedings has submitted a costs schedule which totals £4,210. However, the form in which the contest to the order of HHJ Thornton has taken has been, as I have said, by way of a renewed application for permission.
I do not consider that a renewed application for permission is the appropriate course where the challenge is solely to an order for costs or the quantum of an order for costs. Part 54.12 refers to a request that the decision be reconsidered at a hearing, and the decision to which it refers is a decision within 54.12(1) which either refuses permission or gives permission to proceed. It does not, in my judgment, cover a contest which goes solely to the principle of, or amount of, an order for costs. The appropriate way to proceed is indicated at page 1802 in The White Book, in the notes to part 54.12 under the heading of Costs at the Permission Stage.
The appropriate way was indicated by Carnwath LJ in Ewing v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and others [2005] EWCA Civ 1583, pending any rule changes. They are applicable, with minor changes, to the circumstances which arose here. The judge refusing permission should include in the refusal a decision whether to award costs in principle and an indication of...
To continue reading
Request your trial