ID & Ors v Home Office & Anor

In determining costs after an appeal, the court may consider success on the main issue and the practical assistance its judgment provides to the respondent on issues lost by the appellants. Where the appellants have substantially succeeded, those considerations may justify making no deduction from costs awarded in their favour.

This was an appeal from the Central London County Court before HHJ Crawford Lindsay QC. The supplied judgment records only the Court of Appeal’s costs decision. It does not identify the substantive issues or the lower court’s citation. The appellants had substantially succeeded on the main issue, although they had lost to some extent.

1. Costs. The Court of Appeal considered that this was not a case in which it could sensibly make a deduction from the costs.
2. The appellants had, in essence, won on the main issue. Although they had lost in some respects, the judgment was of great assistance to the Home Office on those matters.
3. The Home Office was therefore expected to be content with the costs order. Costs were ordered here and below.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 4 March 2005, the court determined the appeal and ordered costs here and below. The judgment is reported at [2005] EWCA Civ 296.
2. Central London County Court: Appeal from a decision of HHJ Crawford Lindsay QC. The lower-court citation was not stated in the judgment.