Bennett, R (on the application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission

Where a public authority consents to the quashing of the decision challenged by judicial review and undertakes to take a fresh decision, the court may grant the application, quash the decision and record the undertaking without requiring a contested hearing. The claimant is ordinarily entitled to costs incurred up to, but not including, the hearing at which the order is made. The court may decline to order the claimant to pay the authority’s costs of that hearing where it cannot confidently determine whether the claimant’s attendance was justified.

The claimant challenged an Independent Police Complaints Commission decision confirming that misconduct proceedings against police officers were not justified. The claim was initially refused as out of time and as an attempt to challenge an evidential assessment rather than an error of law. On renewal, permission was granted and the defendant indicated that it would not contest the claim, consenting to the decision being quashed and undertaking to make a fresh decision. The claimant nevertheless sought to attend the hearing. The court determined the appropriate order and costs consequences.

1. The application for judicial review was granted. The defendant had consented to the quashing of the decision dated 18 March 2005 and had expressly undertaken to make a fresh decision. There was therefore nothing further the claimant could say that would improve the application.
2. The decision of 18 March 2005 was quashed. The defendant was to proceed to make a fresh decision.
3. The claimant was entitled to his costs up to, but not including, the costs of the hearing. Those costs were to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, and the claimant was directed to provide a full breakdown within 30 days.
4. No order was made requiring the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of the hearing. Although such an order might have been made if the claimant had attended, the court was not in a position confidently to determine whether his attendance had caused costs without justification.

• Administrative Court: Dobbs J initially refused permission on grounds of delay and disagreement with an evidential assessment. On renewal, Foskett J granted permission and directed service of detailed grounds. The present court subsequently granted the claim by consent, quashed the decision and directed a fresh decision.