Canterbury City Council v Knight

On a licensing appeal, a magistrates’ court has a broad discretion when deciding costs. Although the usual rule is that the unsuccessful party pays, the court may depart from it where that result would be unjust or unreasonable. A public authority is not immune from costs merely because it acted in the public interest. Its conduct, including its handling of reasonable compromise proposals and the consequences of its decisions for hearing costs, may properly be considered. An appeal against such a costs order will fail where no error of law is shown.

The city council appealed by way of case stated against a decision of Margate Magistrates’ Court concerning the proportion of the respondent’s licensing appeal costs which the council should pay. The licensing sub-committee had imposed conditions on a public-house licence, but the appeal ultimately proceeded on agreed variations. The magistrates considered the council’s failure to engage properly with compromise discussions and the increased costs caused by its position concerning an expert witness. They ordered the council to pay a substantial proportion of the costs. The central issue was whether the magistrates had erred in law in exercising their costs discretion.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates’ decision disclosed no possible error of law.
2. The court’s costs jurisdiction in the licensing appeal involved a broad discretion. The general rule that the unsuccessful party pays was subject to circumstances making that outcome unjust or unreasonable.
3. In deciding whether costs should be awarded against a local authority, the court could consider whether it had acted reasonably, properly and honestly. The public interest in enabling public authorities to make sound administrative decisions did not prevent a costs order where the authority’s conduct made such an order just and reasonable.
4. The council’s failure to engage properly with proposed compromise discussions was relevant. The fact that the original decision had been made by a licensing sub-committee did not prevent officers from engaging with the committee to seek agreement to a reasonable compromise.
5. The increased costs associated with requiring an expert to attend, after previously indicating that the report would not be challenged, also supported the magistrates’ order.
6. The court left open a possible application for reconsideration, but only on very strong material. Any such application had to be made within seven days and would initially be considered on paper.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated against the costs decision of Margate Magistrates’ Court was dismissed.
• Margate Magistrates’ Court: Ordered Canterbury City Council to pay a substantial proportion of the respondent’s costs in the licensing appeal.
• High Court: A mandatory order was previously made by King J following a judicial review claim concerning the refusal initially to state a case; no citation was provided.