Ronald, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

Where an appeal is allowed by consent because the respondent authority concedes that the tribunal erred in law, including through failure to provide critical information, the authority should ordinarily bear at least part of the appellant’s appeal costs. The costs order should reflect the extent to which the grounds of appeal depended on that error and the parties’ conduct concerning a reasonable costs proposal.

The claimant appealed against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The appeal was allowed by consent after the respondent authority conceded that the tribunal had erred in law, principally because critical information had not been supplied. The court was asked to determine liability for costs on the parties’ written submissions and the papers.

1. The appeal was allowed by consent. The respondent authority conceded that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal had erred in law, principally through the authority’s failure to supply critical information.
2. In those circumstances, it was appropriate for the respondent to pay at least part of the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
3. The appellant’s proposal that 75 per cent of the appeal costs should be paid by the respondent was reasonable. It properly reflected that the grounds of appeal were not wholly based on the tribunal’s error.
4. The respondent was ordered to pay 75 per cent of the appellant’s costs of the appeal and the costs incurred in the costs application after 16 September 2003.

• Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: decision appealed; the respondent conceded that the tribunal had erred in law.
• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal allowed by consent and costs determined on the written submissions and papers.