Oakes v Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council

Permission for a second appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success and raise neither an important point of principle or practice nor another compelling reason. A court may vary an earlier costs order after a material change in circumstances. The expiry of the period for starting detailed assessment does not necessarily prevent another form of costs assessment where the procedural rules provide for non-compliance. Summary assessment may be appropriate where it avoids further expense and causes no significant prejudice.

After most council-tax arrears were paid, a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the remaining debt was below £750. The appellant was nevertheless ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed at £3,349.71.

HHJ Hodge QC dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant then sought permission for a second appeal, alleging prejudgment, lack of jurisdiction to vary an earlier detailed-assessment order, and procedural unfairness.

1. Application refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and raised neither an important point of principle or practice nor another compelling reason.
2. The length of HHJ Hodge QC’s judgment did not establish prejudgment. Judges may read papers and note uncontroversial background facts before a hearing.
3. A court may vary an earlier order after a material change in circumstances, either on application or, where appropriate, of its own motion. It cannot do so merely because it has changed its mind.
4. CPR 47.7 prescribed a period for commencing detailed assessment, but CPR 47.8 recognised non-compliance and its consequences. Expiry of that period did not automatically prevent summary assessment.
5. No significant procedural unfairness or prejudice was shown. Summary assessment could avoid the additional expense of detailed assessment, and the bill had been substantially reduced.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission for a second appeal was refused.
• County court: District Judge Harrison dismissed the bankruptcy petition because the remaining debt was below £750, but ordered payment of the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed at £3,349.71.
• County court appeal: HHJ Hodge QC dismissed the appeal and upheld the jurisdiction to vary the earlier costs order.