Budgens Stores Ltd v Hastings Magistrates' Court & Anor

Under regulation 7 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, a costs officer must assess work and disbursements by reference to whether they were actually and reasonably undertaken or incurred, while considering all relevant circumstances. The assessment must allow reasonable costs sufficient to compensate properly incurred expenses. Doubts are resolved against the applicant, but that does not permit unexplained or arbitrary disallowances. Where detailed representations identify apparently reasonable work and the decision-maker gives no adequate explanation for substantial reductions, the assessment may be irrational and liable to be quashed.

The claimant was acquitted after a three-day prosecution in the Magistrates' Court involving seven informations concerning health and safety offences. It obtained a defendant's costs order under section 16(1)(c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

A costs officer provisionally reduced the claimant's bill from £63,704.99 to £22,951.65 and later allowed £25,134.80. The claimant sought judicial review, contending that the assessment was Wednesbury unreasonable, particularly because detailed representations about individual items and work by former solicitors were not properly addressed.

1. Claim allowed. The Divisional Court quashed the costs assessment dated 19 March 2008 and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the appropriate authority.
2. Regulation 7 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 requires the appropriate authority to allow costs for work actually and reasonably done and disbursements actually and reasonably incurred, in an amount reasonably sufficient to compensate properly incurred expenses. The authority must consider all relevant circumstances, including the nature, importance, complexity and difficulty of the work and the time involved. The reference to a “double reasonableness test” was an acceptable shorthand for those requirements.
3. The duty to resolve doubts against the applicant did not justify unexplained reductions. Where the claimant supplied precise timings and detailed explanations showing that conferences, witness preparation and other work appeared relevant and reasonably undertaken, the officer was required to give at least a brief explanation for substantial disallowances.
4. The unexplained reductions, including the substantial restriction of time for relevant conferences and preparation of a major witness's proof, were strongly indicative of unreasonableness. The total disallowance of the original solicitors' work was also inadequately addressed after detailed representations had been supplied. Taken together, these matters undermined the assessment as a whole.
5. The court distinguished unreasonableness from merely preferring a different view on the merits. The decision was quashed without any finding that the taxation officer had lacked integrity, fairness or independence. Reconsideration was ordered by the appropriate authority, with costs of the judicial review payable from central funds.

• Magistrates' Court: The claimant was acquitted of all charges and granted a defendant's costs order.
• Costs assessment: The claimant's bill was assessed at £25,134.80 after provisional and final reductions.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The judicial review claim was allowed. The assessment was quashed and remitted to the appropriate authority for reconsideration.