Slot & Anor v East Hampshire District Council

An appellate court should interfere with a costs order only where the lower court failed genuinely to exercise its discretion or took account of wholly extraneous and irrelevant matters. Under Civil Procedure Rules Part 44.3, the costs discretion is wide. It may be appropriate to reserve a party’s entitlement to interlocutory costs until trial where the court considers that the party may ultimately have pursued the claim unreasonably. A judge’s reference during argument to possible effects on public funds does not establish that the matter influenced the costs decision, particularly where the judgment contains no such reference.

Mr and Mrs Slot brought proceedings against East Hampshire District Council concerning alleged assurances about planning permission and, alternatively, misrepresentation. District Judge Harvey entered summary judgment for the council and dismissed the claim with costs.

Mr Justice Laddie allowed the Slots’ appeal because the District Judge had improperly relied on oral statements made during the hearing rather than the pleaded case. He held that the pleadings disclosed at least an arguable claim, but ordered that the costs should be the claimants’ costs in the claim, including the interlocutory costs.

The Slots sought permission to appeal against that costs order. The central issue was whether Mr Justice Laddie had acted outside the discretion conferred by Part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

1. Application dismissed. Permission to appeal against the costs order was refused.

2. The discretion conferred by Part 44.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules is very wide. Rule 44.3(5)(b) requires the court to consider, among other matters, whether it was reasonable for a party to raise or pursue a particular allegation or issue.

3. Mr Justice Laddie was entitled to take into account the possibility that the trial judge might find that the Slots had pursued their claim unreasonably. That possibility could justify ordering that they should not recover the costs of interlocutory hearings unless and until they succeeded at trial. The issue was properly left for determination at trial.

4. The Court of Appeal may interfere with a costs discretion where the judge did not genuinely exercise the discretion or took wholly extraneous and irrelevant matters into account. There was no evidential basis for concluding that Mr Justice Laddie had given weight to the alleged burden on council taxpayers. The judgment did not refer to that matter, and there was no transcript of the argument.

5. The costs order was therefore within the proper ambit of the judge’s discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1214, permission to appeal against the costs order was refused and the application was dismissed.
• Chancery Division: Mr Justice Laddie allowed the appeal from the District Judge’s summary judgment and ordered that the claimants’ costs be costs in the claim.
• Guildford County Court: District Judge Harvey entered summary judgment for East Hampshire District Council and dismissed the claim with costs.