B&Q Plc, R. v

Where an appellant is substantially unsuccessful but succeeds on a discrete costs issue, an appellate costs order should reflect the real extent and significance of that success. It is not appropriate automatically to apportion a fixed fraction of the appeal’s overall costs to that issue. The court may assess costs summarily, rather than order a detailed assessment, where the sums involved and the available information make that course just.

This was a supplementary determination of the costs of an appeal from Bournemouth Crown Court. In its earlier judgment, the Court of Appeal had dismissed the appeal against conviction and fine, but allowed in part the appeal concerning the trial judge’s costs order: [2005] EWCA Crim 2297.

After receiving written submissions on appeal costs, the court considered the parties’ respective overall costs and the appellant’s contention that its partial success on the trial-costs issue should be treated as representing one third of the appeal.

1. The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent £4,000 as the costs of the appeal and to bear its own appeal costs.
2. The appellant had been substantially unsuccessful overall. Its success was confined to the issue of the costs order made at trial.
3. That discrete issue did not justify treating one third of all appeal costs as attributable to it. The argument had occupied little court time, evidently required limited preparation, and the subsequent written submissions were of manageable length.
4. The appellant was nevertheless entitled to an allowance for its partial success. The court calculated the £4,000 figure by reducing the respondent’s otherwise recoverable costs to reflect the respondent’s failure on the trial-costs issue, and by allowing an amount for the appellant’s costs of that issue.
5. Having regard to the sums involved, the court held that a detailed assessment was not in the interests of justice.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In an earlier judgment, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction and fine, while allowing in part the appeal concerning the Crown Court costs order: [2005] EWCA Crim 2297. This supplementary judgment determined the costs of that appeal.
• Bournemouth Crown Court: HH Judge Jarvis made the conviction, fine and costs orders challenged on appeal. No citation is stated in the judgment.