Boyle, R (on the application of) v Haverhill Pubwatch

Where a claimant loses civil proceedings, the ordinary consequence is an order requiring payment of the successful party’s costs. The court may limit multiple successful parties to one set of costs where that fairly reflects their common representation or interests. A costs order will not ordinarily be varied merely because the claimant was unrepresented at a later hearing, where legal representatives previously advised on the litigation and its costs consequences. Permission to appeal is refused where the proposed grounds concern evidence relevant only to an issue which the court did not decide, and there is no real prospect of success on the legal issues that were decided.

The applicant sought to vary an earlier costs order and obtain permission to appeal after discovering that he had not been notified of the earlier hearing. The original proceedings had been brought in the High Court and had been argued by solicitors and counsel. The court had decided two legal issues against him and had not determined a third issue concerning factual matters, including alleged violence, the adequacy of appeal opportunities and alleged bias. The earlier order required payment of one set of costs for the successful side, with assessment treating the parties as effectively one defendant. The present hearing concerned whether that order should be changed and whether the proposed factual grounds disclosed an arguable appeal.

1. Costs. The earlier costs order was maintained. The general rule in civil claims is that the successful party receives an order for its costs from the unsuccessful party. The applicant had chosen to bring and pursue High Court proceedings with legal representation, and the costs consequences should have been explained to him. His later self-representation did not justify changing the order.
2. The presence of the Chief Constable was necessary because the Pubwatch scheme itself was not represented and the proceedings could have had wider implications for Haverhill Pubwatch and Pubwatch schemes generally. Nevertheless, the court had already limited the successful side to one set of costs. There was no proper basis for altering that order, and doing so would have been perverse in the circumstances.
3. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused. The court had jurisdiction to grant permission only in limited circumstances, and there was no real prospect of success. The issues actually decided were legal issues which did not depend on the detailed evidence about the underlying incidents.
4. The proposed grounds concerning allegedly misleading evidence, documents, photographs and alleged bias related principally to the third issue. That issue had not been decided because the first two legal issues were sufficient to dispose of the claim. The court therefore expressed no view on it, and those factual matters could not establish an arguable appeal from the decision that had been made.
5. No order for costs was made in respect of the present hearing because it had become necessary through the applicant’s failure to receive notice, rather than through any fault of his own. The costs of this hearing were excluded from the application for costs to the costs judge. The applicant retained the right to seek permission from a Lord or Lady Justice of the Court of Appeal.

The judgment records an earlier High Court hearing on 8 October, at which the claim had been decided and a costs order made. The applicant was not notified of that hearing. The present court refused to vary the costs order and refused permission to appeal, subject to the applicant’s right to seek permission from the Court of Appeal.