Manchester City Council v Manchester Magistrates' Court & Anor

A magistrates’ court has a wide discretion under section 52(3) of the Courts Act 1971 to award costs when a complaint is not proceeded with. The discretion must be exercised judicially and by reference to relevant circumstances, including the reasons for withdrawal and the parties’ respective interests. The guidance in City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth applies, with appropriate allowance for the additional decision to withdraw proceedings. The indemnity principle applies. Costs cannot exceed the liability for which the successful party is properly responsible under a retainer or public funding arrangement. Irrelevant considerations, inadequate evidence of the retainer, and an award unrelated to the period or costs actually recoverable may render the decision unreasonable.

Manchester City Council applied by way of a case stated against an order of the Manchester Magistrates’ Court dated 17 September 2008. The magistrates’ court had awarded £2,000 plus VAT to each of two respondents after the Council withdrew applications for anti-social behaviour orders. The applications had originally been properly brought, but the respondents had made progress and the Council decided not to proceed.

The case stated raised the proper exercise of the discretion under section 52(3) of the Courts Act 1971, the application of the indemnity principle, the sufficiency of evidence of private retainers, the relevance of the absence of anti-social behaviour orders on conviction, and whether the awards were available to a properly directed judge.

1. Appeal allowed. The costs order was quashed and replaced by an order that there be no order for costs.
2. Section 52(3) of the Courts Act 1971 confers a wide discretion where a complaint is not proceeded with. That discretion must nevertheless be exercised judicially. The guidance in City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth applies, although withdrawal creates an additional decision which must itself be considered. The ordinary Administrative Court approach on withdrawal, namely that there is often no order for costs unless it is apparent who would have won, may be relevant but is not necessarily determinative.
3. The Council had properly brought the applications and had properly withdrawn them because the respondents had made progress. The magistrates’ court failed to identify the decision which justified a costs order and treated irrelevant matters as relevant. The absence of criminal anti-social behaviour orders was not relevant to costs in respect of applications made before the criminal convictions. Nor was the proposition that defendants should not be forced to agree to such orders for economic reasons relevant, since no agreement had been forced and the applications were withdrawn for proper reasons.
4. The indemnity principle applies to costs orders under section 52(3). A costs award cannot exceed the costs for which the successful party is liable under a valid retainer or public funding arrangement. The evidence showed, at most, a retainer arising during the week before the hearing. It could not justify an award representing the whole costs of the applications, and the evidence concerning one respondent’s retainer was materially deficient.
5. On the evidence accepted by the court, the proper exercise of discretion was to make no order for costs in respect of either respondent. No further costs order was sought on the appeal.

• Manchester Magistrates’ Court: on 17 September 2008, awarded £2,000 plus VAT to each respondent after the Council withdrew its anti-social behaviour order applications.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal by case stated was allowed. The order was quashed and substituted by an order that there be no order for costs.