DL & Anor v London Borough of Newham

In determining costs after judicial review proceedings, the court must balance the parties’ success and failure, the aims pursued, the conduct of the litigation and the parties’ submissions. The court may make no further order as to costs where that is the fairest pragmatic result, even though each party has achieved partial success. The court may also require the return of documents and possessions belonging to a child, with a penal notice and liberty to apply where appropriate.

The claimants had challenged decisions concerning the placement of K. An earlier judgment ordered the local authority to reconsider its decisions and to pay half of the claimants’ costs up to 27 May 2011. The further judgment determined the outstanding costs issues and a request concerning the return of K’s documents and possessions. The issues were whether any further costs order should be made and what order should govern the return of the specified items.

1. The court made no further order as to costs, apart from ordering a detailed assessment of the claimants’ publicly funded costs. The claimants’ original aim was to have K returned to their care with a view to adoption being decided by the Family Court. That aim was abandoned during the second hearing. The claims for declaratory relief and damages relating to the first decision were unsuccessful.
2. In assessing the appropriate costs order, the court balanced the claimants’ partial success in securing reconsideration against their failure on the return of K and on the claims for declaratory relief and damages. It also considered the parties’ litigation and other conduct, the effect of the claimants’ legal arguments on the length of the hearing and the written submissions. Although those matters might have supported an order requiring the claimants to pay part of the defendant’s costs, the pragmatic and fair result was that there should be no further order.
3. The claimants were ordered to return K’s passport, red book and all documents relating to his savings account or accounts within four days of service of the order. A penal notice was attached. The order gave the claimants liberty to apply to vary or discharge it, and required the order to be stayed if such an application was served within the four-day period.

The judgment states that two earlier judgments had been delivered in the same proceedings. The first ordered reconsideration by the local authority and payment of half of the claimants’ costs up to 27 May 2011. This further judgment determined the outstanding costs issues and made an order concerning the return of documents and possessions.