Haycocks v The Law Society

Costs normally follow the event, but Part 44 gives the court a broad discretion to make a different order. The court may consider the parties’ conduct before and during proceedings, the extent of success on individual issues, and the manner in which allegations and issues were pursued. A party who obtains some substantive relief may receive a modest proportion of costs even where its own conduct materially contributed to the litigation and it succeeded only on limited issues.

This was an appeal by Hugh Stephen Haycocks against the Law Society. The appeal took an unusual course following the Law Society’s concession on the point that concerned the Court of Appeal. The appellant thereby obtained another opportunity to challenge the penalty imposed on him, although he lost another issue and the court considered his conduct before the disciplinary committee and during the litigation seriously deficient.

The issue was the appropriate costs order in light of the parties’ respective conduct and partial success.

1. Discretion under Part 44. The ordinary rule is that costs follow the event. Under Part 44, however, the court has a wide discretion to depart from that general rule. Relevant considerations include conduct before and during the proceedings, the extent to which each party succeeded on all issues, and the manner in which allegations and issues were pursued.
2. Application. The Law Society had acted properly by conceding the point that concerned the court. The appellant’s conduct was materially adverse to him: he ignored the disciplinary committee’s correspondence, failed to respond, commenced proceedings largely as a result of his own conduct, brought judicial review late, was technically late in appealing, rejected opportunities offered by the Law Society, and lost one issue.
3. Nevertheless, the appellant obtained some relief. Without proceedings, the penalty would have remained unchallenged, and the concession gave him another opportunity to challenge it. By the narrowest margin, that justified awarding him a modest part of his costs.
4. Order. The appellant was awarded one quarter of his costs in the Court of Appeal and below, including the costs of the costs hearing, to be assessed if not agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 17 June 2003, awarded the appellant one quarter of his costs here and below, including the costs of the hearing, to be assessed if not agreed.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: the appeal was from a decision of Mr Justice Collins. No separate citation for that decision is stated.