Noble v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis

Where a trial is adjourned through a dispute between an assisted claimant and his solicitors, and the opposing party did not cause the adjournment, the opposing party is entitled to its costs of and occasioned by the adjournment. For an assisted person, enforcement may be limited to set-off against any damages awarded. A complaint that solicitors caused the resulting loss must be pursued against them in the appropriate court below. It does not provide a proper route of appeal against the costs order made in favour of the opposing party.

The claimant brought proceedings against the Commissioner arising from his arrest and detention in 1996, alleging assault and false imprisonment and seeking damages. His trial in 2002 was adjourned after a dispute with his solicitors about preparation of the case. The trial judge ordered him to pay the Commissioner’s costs of and occasioned by the adjournment, enforceable only by set-off against any damages because he was an assisted person.

The claimant sought permission to appeal. Simon J refused an extension of time, and His Honour Judge Darlow refused permission at an oral hearing. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the claimant could challenge the costs order on the basis that his solicitors, rather than the Commissioner, had caused the adjournment.

Application for permission to appeal refused.

1. The Court of Appeal would have extended time if the proposed appeal had any prospect of success. It did not, because the challenge did not disclose a proper ground of appeal.
2. As between the claimant and the Commissioner, the adjournment was not caused by the Commissioner. The Commissioner was therefore entitled to the costs of and occasioned by the adjournment. The order properly reflected the claimant’s status as an assisted person by providing that the costs were not to be enforced except by way of set-off against any damages he might receive.
3. The claimant’s complaint that his solicitors caused the relevant loss was a separate issue. The courts hearing the application were not seised of that dispute, and it had not been determined. If pursued, it had to be addressed against the former solicitors in the appropriate court below, on proper notice, rather than by appealing the costs order made between the claimant and the Commissioner.
4. His Honour Judge Darlow had given the correct reasons for refusing permission. The Court of Appeal refused permission and stated that the claimant’s substantive claim against the Commissioner could proceed, while the dispute with the former solicitors was not before the court.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was refused on 25 May 2004; the proposed appeal was considered hopeless. [2004] EWCA Civ 1195
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: His Honour Judge Darlow refused permission to appeal after an oral hearing. Simon J had earlier refused an extension of time and permission on paper.
3. Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Levy ordered the claimant to pay the Commissioner’s costs of and occasioned by the adjournment of the trial, subject to enforcement by set-off against any damages.