S, R v London Borough of Hackney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Newman |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 228 (Admin) |
| Date | 19 March 2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/3488/99 |
[2001] EWHC 228 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Honourable Mr Justice Newman
CO/3488/99
BRIAN McQUIRE, (instructed by the London Borough of Hackney)
for the Respondent
JENNIFER RICHARDS, (instructed by Mackintosh Duncan), Solicitors
for the Applicant
On 13 October 2000 I handed down a judgment ruling upon liability for the costs of these proceedings. The judgment followed an oral hearing and the parties, having failed to agree on who should bear the costs of the oral application, have served written submissions to enable me to rule in connection with those costs.
The central issue in connection with the costs of the proceedings, as my judgment discloses, was whether some £56,000 could properly be regarded as having been incurred as costs in the proceedings, when the only court events had been an ex parte application for an injunction and attendance at some further short application hearings. In order to resolve the difference I had to subject the relevant period to analysis. The period was split into parts as a result. It was not the case for either side that I should split the issue into parts and so resolve the position, nor was it the case that I should attempt to tax or assess the costs. As it happened, where I could not properly regard periods of activity as being in connection with the proceedings, I disallowed costs.
My resolution is not apt to be regarded as comprising a definition of issues. It represents the result of applying my conclusion to the central issue which was whether, after the grant of the junction, any costs should have been incurred by the claimant's solicitor.
On that the claimant succeeded only in part and the defendant established that which had not been accepted by the claimant, namely that costs incurred in monitoring the authority's performance of the statutory duty were not legal costs.
Each party had to come to court to have this fundamental difference resolved and, having regard to CPR Part 44.3, and the court's discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F v Secretary of State for Home Department and Another
...13 October 2000) at paras [8] and [11] and again in R v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hackney ex p S (No 2) [2001] EWHC Admin 228 at para [4]. ...
-
CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another
...Borough of Hackney, ex p S (13 October 2000, unreported). R v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hackney, ex p S (No 2) [2001] EWHC Admin 228. R v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, ex p Glass[1999] 3 FCR 145, [1999] 2 FLR 905, Roddy (a child) (identification: restriction on publicat......
-
L v Leeds County Council
...ex p S (unreported, 13 October 2000) at paras [8] and [11] and R v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hackney ex p S (No 2) [2001] EWHC Admin 228 at para [4]. … [34] It is elementary that it is for the claimant to set out what his case is and then to adduce the necessary evidence......