Chiltern District Council, R (on the application of) v Wren Davis Ltd

On an appeal concerning costs following an unsuccessful challenge to an abatement notice, the successful local authority was prima facie entitled to recover its costs. That entitlement was not displaced merely because the magistrates extended the time for compliance. A costs order against the authority required a proper assessment of the conduct and circumstances of the appeal. Where the recipient of an abatement notice had never accepted its validity or requested more time to comply, the authority could not fairly be criticised for failing to conduct discussions about an extension. A magistrates’ bench hearing costs separately from the bench that determined the substantive appeal was competent to decide the costs issue.

The local authority served Wren Davis Limited with an abatement notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerning noise from a cooling tower. The company appealed to magistrates, challenging the validity of the notice. The magistrates rejected those grounds but extended the compliance period. A different bench later ordered the authority to pay £1,000 towards the company’s costs, apparently because the authority had not offered reasonable discussions about the extension.

The authority appealed by way of case stated. The questions concerned the competence of the later bench and whether the costs order was justified.

1. The appeal was allowed. The order requiring the council to pay £1,000 to Wren Davis Limited was set aside.
2. The magistrates had upheld the abatement notice and the council had successfully contested the appeal. That result meant that the council was prima facie entitled to its costs, although success does not invariably determine the costs order.
3. The magistrates had misconceived the relevant circumstances. The company had never requested an extension of time, stated that it accepted the notice, or indicated that it would comply subject to additional time. Discussion about an extension could not reasonably have taken place until the company adopted that position.
4. The council had reasonably pursued its statutory duty at public expense and had succeeded on the validity challenge. It was plainly wrong to order the council to pay the company £1,000 merely because an extension of the compliance period had ultimately become necessary.
5. A different bench of magistrates was entitled to determine the costs issue. The court declined to remit the matter for reconsideration of an order in the council’s favour. The council was awarded £2,000 costs for the appeal.

• Magistrates’ Court for Central Buckinghamshire: rejected the challenge to the validity of the abatement notice, extended the compliance period to six months, and later ordered the council to pay £1,000 towards the company’s costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by way of case stated, set aside the £1,000 costs order, and awarded the council £2,000 costs for the appeal.