The Queen (on the application of London Borough of Lewisham and Others) v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance ("AQA") and Others (4) Oxford and Cambridge and RSA Examinations t/a Ocr ("OCR") and Another (Interested Parties)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Elias |
| Judgment Date | 22 April 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 962 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: CO/11409/2012 AND CO/11413/2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 22 April 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 962 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Elias
Mrs Justice Sharp
Case Nos: CO/11409/2012 AND CO/11413/2012
and
Mr Clive Sheldon QC, Ms Joanne Clement and Mr Joseph Barrett (instructed by LB of Lewisham Legal Services) for the ClaimantsMr Clive LewisQC andMs Jane Oldham (instructed by Eversheds LLP) for the Defendants AQAMr Nigel GiffinQC andMr Christopher Knight (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the Defendants EDEXCELMs Helen Mountfield QC, Ms Sarah Hannett and Mr Raj Desai (instructed by Wragge & Co LLP) for the Defendants OFQUAL
On 13 February 2013 we handed down judgment in this case ( [2013] EWHC 211 (Admin)). We then made the following costs order:
"(1) The Claimants to pay the costs of each of the Defendants on the standard basis, to be the subject of detailed assessment, if not agreed.
(2) There be no order for costs as between the Claimants and the Interested Party."
We have been asked to give reasons for that order, and so we briefly do so.
We had received extensive written submissions from the parties on the question of costs but our reasons for making this order can be stated succinctly. The Claimants lost on all of the many points they raised bar one, which was not significant in the context of the case as a whole. We did not consider this to be the sort of exceptional case where, despite this, the losing party should receive its costs. On the contrary, we saw no reason to depart from the normal rule that costs should follow the event. We did consider whether this was a case justifying an issues based costs order but that did not seem to us to be an appropriate order. It is true that the Claimants succeeded on the question whether the awarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial