Prielipp & Anor v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions

Permission to appeal against a tribunal’s costs order should be refused where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success. A costs decision is not manifestly perverse merely because another order, such as a split order, might reasonably have been made. Concise reasons may satisfy the required standard of clarity where the decision, read with the parties’ detailed submissions, shows that the tribunal addressed the issues and reached an intelligible conclusion.

The application concerned a costs order made by the Lands Tribunal after a compulsory purchase case lasting about five days. The claimants had beaten the Secretary of State’s sealed offer, and the Tribunal ordered the Secretary of State to pay their costs. The Secretary of State submitted that the Tribunal should have departed from the usual approach and made a split order because it had succeeded on several issues.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the Tribunal’s reasons met the standard of clarity expected from a judicial decision-maker and whether its conclusion was manifestly perverse.

The application for permission to appeal was refused. There was no order for costs.

1. The Court considered two grounds of challenge. First, whether the Tribunal member had expressed his reasoning with the clarity a litigant is entitled to expect from a judicial decision-maker. Secondly, whether the conclusion was manifestly perverse.
2. The Secretary of State’s submissions concerning several issues, including eviction costs, had force. They could have supported a different or split costs order. That did not make the Tribunal’s conclusion perverse. It was open to the Tribunal to reach the conclusion it did, and there was no reason to suppose that it had failed to consider the guidance contained in the written submissions.
3. The Tribunal’s addendum was brief and did not repeat every submission. However, the parties had presented their arguments in long, careful and orderly written submissions. The Court was satisfied that, in substance, the Tribunal member had accepted the claimants’ submissions on costs and had summarised his conclusion by stating that no unusual circumstances justified departure from the normal rule that costs follow the event.
4. Although aspects of the reasoning could be criticised, the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. Permission was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal under [2002] EWCA Civ 1001; no order for costs.
• Lands Tribunal: ordered the Secretary of State to pay the claimants’ costs after they beat the sealed offer and found no unusual circumstances justifying departure from the normal rule.