Odele, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hackney

A judicial review claim should not continue where the claimant has obtained substantially the relief sought and no real, live dispute remains. After permission has been granted, a claimant must reconsider whether the claim should proceed in light of material developments and inform the court if it has become academic. The defendant also has a duty to keep the court informed of material changes. A failure by either party may affect the costs order.

The claimant sought judicial review concerning Hackney’s failure to provide a copy of a penalty charge notice issued in respect of his vehicle. After permission was granted, the penalty charge and associated charges were cancelled. The claimant nevertheless continued with the proceedings, partly because the Council had failed to respond to his correspondence and had not provided the requested explanation or copy of the notice.

At the hearing, the substantive claim was no longer live. The remaining issue was the defendant’s application for costs, including the effect of both parties’ failure to notify the court promptly of the changed circumstances.

1. Disposition. The application for judicial review was dismissed because the claimant had obtained substantially what he wanted when the penalty charge was cancelled. The courts should be used to resolve real and live disputes, not disputes that are no longer substantially live.
2. Once permission has been granted, a claimant must reconsider whether the claim should be pursued in light of material developments. The claimant should have reviewed the prospect of continuing the litigation after the penalty charge was cancelled and should have informed the court of the change.
3. Both parties owed duties to the court. The defendant’s prolonged silence and failure to inform the court that the notice had been cancelled were culpable. The claimant’s legitimate grievance about the Council’s conduct did not justify continuing proceedings after the substantive relief had been obtained.
4. The defendant’s costs could not be summarily assessed in full without an adequate statement of the amount sought. However, the claimant was liable for a proportion of the costs because he had failed to inform the court that the dispute had effectively ended. Taking account also of the defendant’s failure to notify the court, the claimant was ordered to pay £250.