Ramblers' Association v Coventry City Council

In proceedings concerning gating orders, the court dismissed the consolidated actions where the claimant obtained none of the relief sought. The defendant succeeded on the substantive issues identified as issues 1 to 6. Defects in an earlier order, giving rise to issues 7 and 8, had been corrected by a later order. The court nevertheless exercised discretion on costs and ordered the claimant to pay 70 per cent of the defendant’s costs. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds had no realistic prospect of success and raised no sufficient issue of general public interest.

The Ramblers’ Association brought consolidated proceedings against Coventry City Council concerning gating orders. The judgment refers to eight issues. The defendant succeeded on issues 1 to 6, while issues 7 and 8 principally concerned defects in an earlier order that were corrected by a second order made on 22 November 2007.

The consolidated actions were dismissed. The court then determined costs and an application for permission to appeal. The central questions at this stage were the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the corrected defects and whether any proposed ground had a realistic prospect of success or raised an issue of general public interest.

1. Disposition. The consolidated actions were dismissed. The claimant obtained none of the relief sought.
2. Substantive issues. The defendant succeeded on issues 1 to 6. Issues 7 and 8 arose mainly from defects in the first order, which were corrected in the second order. The defendant gave notice of its intention to make the second order on 14 August 2007, and the order was made on 22 November 2007.
3. Costs. Although the defendant succeeded on all the issues, the claimant should not pay all of the defendant’s costs. Having regard to the defects in the first order, the date on which they were remedied, and the timing of the defendant’s arguments concerning those matters, the claimant was ordered to pay 70 per cent of the defendant’s costs, calculated as £11,725.
4. Permission to appeal. The court recognised that this was the first occasion on which gating orders had been considered by the court and that councils must proceed with care when making them. Nevertheless, none of the proposed grounds had a realistic prospect of success, and none raised an issue of general public interest warranting permission. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.

No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused.