Stone, R (on the application of) v Camberwell Green Magistrates Court & Anor

When exercising a statutory discretion over costs in forfeiture proceedings, a magistrates’ court must consider what is just and reasonable on the facts, including the parties’ conduct, financial prejudice and any compromise reached. Costs do not automatically follow the outcome. A short statement of reasons is sufficient where it addresses the material considerations. A court may decline to resolve the statutory jurisdiction to award costs where that issue is unnecessary to the result.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court to make no order for costs after forfeiture proceedings concerning seized cash. Part of the cash was paid to HM Revenue and Customs under an agreement with the claimant, and the balance was forfeited under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The claimant argued that she was the successful party, that the interested party’s conduct justified an award, and that the magistrates’ court had failed to give adequate reasons or apply the principles later approved in Perinpanathan v Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another, [2010] EWCA (Civ) 40. The central issues were the proper exercise of the costs discretion and whether the statutory jurisdiction required determination.

1. Application dismissed. The Divisional Court upheld the decision to make no order for costs.
2. The court did not determine whether costs were governed by section 64 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 or section 52 of the Courts Act 1971. Lord Justice Moses emphasised that, on one view, neither provision applied and no costs jurisdiction arose. The point was left for a case in which it was necessary to decide it.
3. On the assumed application of section 64, the discretion was properly exercised. The claimant’s conduct-based argument had not been advanced before the District Judge, but the Divisional Court considered it in any event and found no unreasonable conduct by the interested party. Before the tax issue arose, genuine discussions concerned the amount properly returnable to the claimant. Thereafter, the interested party was entitled to consider whether the seized money should be forfeited or dealt with practically. The agreement transferring part of the money to HM Revenue and Customs avoided further proceedings and discharged a substantial tax liability.
4. The District Judge’s reasons were short but adequate. They addressed the history, financial prejudice and compromise agreement. Her reference to forfeiture under other legislation was an error, but it was immaterial because forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 remained available and was likely to succeed.
5. The principles approved in Perinpanathan v Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another, [2010] EWCA (Civ) 40, were materially the same as those relied on before the District Judge. There was therefore no failure to apply those principles. Costs of the judicial review were ordered against the claimant.

• Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court: On 13 January 2009, the District Judge made no order for costs following the forfeiture proceedings.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The application for judicial review was dismissed. Costs of the judicial review were ordered against the claimant.