Srinivasans Solicitors, R (on the application of) v Croydon County Court & Anor

A successful judicial-review claim does not automatically attract an order for costs. Under Part 44.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the court retains a broad discretion, although the unsuccessful party normally pays. It may make no order where the litigation produced only partial success and the parties’ conduct made issue-by-issue apportionment inappropriate. Relevant conduct includes abandoning an issue, pursuing litigation inefficiently, failing to focus on the real point, and advancing a jurisdiction objection unclearly or too late. An appellate court will rarely interfere with a costs decision. Intervention requires a wrong principle, a misunderstanding of a significant matter, or a plainly wrong conclusion.

The appellant solicitors challenged an order made by the Croydon County Court on 25 March 2010 in proceedings involving a Part 8 claim and an application under the Solicitors Act 1974. Blake J granted judicial review and quashed paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of that order for lack of jurisdiction, but refused the appellant’s application for the costs of the judicial-review proceedings. He remitted the costs of the Part 8 claim to the county court. The appeal was limited to the refusal of judicial-review costs. The central issue was whether Blake J had erred in exercising his costs discretion.

Appeal dismissed. Mummery LJ gave the substantive judgment and Leveson LJ agreed.

1. Part 44.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 gives the court discretion as to whether costs are payable, their amount and when they are to be paid. The general rule that the unsuccessful party pays does not displace that discretion.
2. The appellant had not achieved complete success. Although paragraph 1 of the county court order was quashed, the appellant failed on the proposed transfer to the Senior Courts Costs Office. The judge was therefore entitled to consider the overall result rather than treat the claim as wholly successful.
3. The conduct of the parties was relevant. The appellant had raised and abandoned an Article 6 point, causing the respondent to incur preparation costs. The litigation was also conducted inefficiently, with extensive documentation for what was ultimately a simple jurisdiction issue.
4. The jurisdiction point was not clearly raised before the Deputy District Judge. The point later advanced before Blake J differed from that raised before HHJ Ellis. The proper time to raise the objection was before the court of original jurisdiction, and the confusion and delay were relevant to costs.
5. Blake J was entitled to decline an issue-by-issue apportionment exercise. In the circumstances, a direction that there be no order as to costs was a proper exercise of discretion.
6. The Court of Appeal was reluctant to interfere. The appellant had not shown that Blake J acted on a wrong principle, misunderstood a significant point, or reached a plainly wrong decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the refusal of judicial-review costs, [2013] EWCA Civ 249.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Blake J granted judicial review, quashed paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the county court order, refused costs of the judicial-review proceedings, and remitted the Part 8 costs issue.
• Croydon County Court: Deputy District Judge Sadd made the order dated 25 March 2010. HHJ Ellis refused permission to appeal from that order.