B v London Borough of Hackney

Where judicial review proceedings have become academic and the parties have settled the substantive dispute, the court may permit withdrawal and determine the consequential costs issue. An indemnity costs order requires more than ordinary disagreement about correspondence or the handling of costs. In the absence of conduct justifying indemnity costs, the appropriate order is costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

The substantive judicial review proceedings between B and the London Borough of Hackney had been settled in every respect except costs. The claimant sought permission to withdraw the now-academic claim and applied for costs on an indemnity basis. The defendant accepted liability for costs but contended that they should be assessed on the standard basis.

1. The claimant was permitted to withdraw the judicial review claim because it had become academic.
2. The defendant was liable for the claimant’s costs, but the circumstances did not justify an indemnity costs order. The claimant’s complaints about the defendant’s handling of correspondence and the costs claim did not establish conduct sufficiently unreasonable to warrant that basis of assessment.
3. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
4. Detailed assessment of the claimant’s publicly funded costs was permitted.

First-instance proceedings. The substantive claim was settled before the costs hearing and was then permitted to be withdrawn as academic.