Loucif, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department

A renewed application for permission is not the appropriate procedure to challenge only the principle or amount of a costs order made when permission is refused. Such a challenge should ordinarily be made by written submissions to the judge who made the order. The timetable in Ewing v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, [2005] EWCA Civ 1583, applies even where the original order does not expressly provide for written submissions. Where a renewed oral application challenges refusal of permission, costs can instead be dealt with at that hearing.

The claimant sought judicial review of delay by the Secretary of State in deciding submissions concerning his immigration status. The substantive issue became academic when a decision was made, and the claim was dismissed by HHJ Thornton QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The judge awarded the claimant £800 in costs. The claimant challenged the quantum by renewing the application for permission and submitted a schedule claiming £4,210. The central issues were whether that procedure was appropriate and what sum should be awarded.

1. Procedure for challenging costs. A renewed application under Part 54.12 is directed to reconsideration of a decision refusing or granting permission. It does not cover a challenge confined to the principle or quantum of a costs order. The proper procedure is written submissions to the judge who made the order.
2. Applicable timetable. Following Ewing v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, [2005] EWCA Civ 1583, the judge refusing permission should indicate whether costs are payable and the proposed summary amount. The aggrieved party should have 14 days to respond, with the other party having 7 days to reply. The timetable applies implicitly where a costs order is made without notice, even if the order does not expressly state it.
3. Renewed oral hearings. Where a renewed application genuinely challenges refusal of permission, it is convenient and appropriate to deal with the costs of the paper application at the renewed oral hearing. That exception did not apply because the claimant accepted that permission should be refused.
4. Disposition. The claimant's challenge to the procedure was upheld in substance. The court reassessed the costs and ordered payment of £3,700. No order for the costs of the hearing was made.

HHJ Thornton QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the application for permission because the claim had become academic, but ordered the defendant to pay £800 in costs. The High Court (Administrative Court) varied the costs order to £3,700.