Stamford Chamber of Trade & Commerce, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Costs in judicial review remain a matter for the court’s discretion. The general approach discussed in Bolton MDC v Secretary of State for the Environment does not necessarily apply where two defendants have defended different decisions. It may nevertheless be just to award both defendants their costs in full where each had a proper reason to participate, even if submissions overlapped on one issue. The court may also refuse permission to appeal where it has applied established administrative-law principles and identifies no real prospect of success.

The claimants challenged two decisions by separate defendants in judicial review proceedings. Following the substantive judgment, the claimants disputed liability for both defendants’ costs, relying on overlap in the presentation of the first issue. The Secretary of State had made submissions on the second and third issues, while the local planning authority defended its own decision. The court was also asked for permission to appeal against the judgment.

The issues were whether both defendants should recover their costs in full and whether there was a real prospect of success on appeal.

1. Costs. The court ordered the claimants to pay the costs of both defendants, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
2. The court considered the guidance in Bolton MDC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1995) 3 PLR 37, including the principle that costs involve a discretionary assessment rather than fixed rules. It was not persuaded that the general approach applicable to planning appeals necessarily governed this judicial review.
3. There were two defendants and two different decisions under challenge. It was therefore reasonable for the local planning authority to attend court and defend its own decision. The Secretary of State had separately addressed issues which arose only against her.
4. Although submissions overlapped on the first issue, the Secretary of State had a legitimate reason to address it. The second issue depended on the first, and the practical target of the challenge was the Secretary of State’s decision not to save the relevant policy. Only the Secretary of State had power to save a local-plan policy under Schedule 2 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
5. Even if the approach in Bolton applied, the circumstances justified awarding both defendants their costs in full. Permission to appeal was refused because the court had applied well-established administrative-law principles and identified no real prospect of success.

Following the substantive judicial review judgment, the court determined costs and refused permission to appeal. No citation for the earlier judgment is stated.