Blackside Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

On consequential matters following a judicial review judgment, the court declined to grant declarations which would determine, on the basis of untested evidence, whether seized goods were subject to lawful seizure or liable to forfeiture. Those issues were properly matters for the subsequent condemnation proceedings. An interim declaration would have no practical utility and could contradict conclusions already reached. Although the defendant succeeded overall, its recovery of costs was reduced to reflect issues on which it failed and criticism of aspects of its conduct. The claimant was ordered to pay two thirds of the defendant’s costs.

Blackside Ltd brought judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State concerning the seizure of goods. The court had handed down an earlier judgment on 23 July 2013. In these consequential proceedings, the claimant sought declarations that there had been no reasonable grounds for suspecting or believing that the goods were liable to forfeiture and that the seizure was invalid or improper.

The court also had to determine the appropriate costs order, having regard to the defendant’s overall success, the issues on which it had failed, and criticism of aspects of its conduct. The court considered whether the disputed seizure issues should instead be determined in condemnation proceedings.

1. The claimant’s proposed declaration that there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting or believing that the goods were liable to forfeiture was refused. The earlier conclusion had been based on untested evidence. Whether there were in fact reasonable grounds for seizure was an issue for determination in the condemnation proceedings, as explained in the earlier judgment.

2. The proposed declaration that the seizure was invalid or improper was also refused. It was inconsistent with the conclusions reached in the earlier judgment at paragraphs 78–80, and the validity of the seizure was likewise an issue for the condemnation proceedings.

3. An interim declaration based on untested evidence in judicial review proceedings would not be practically useful, even if such a declaration were otherwise appropriate. It would add nothing to the court’s existing reasoning.

4. The defendant had succeeded in resisting the claim, but had failed on several issues, including the double use of the ARC, the alleged agency of the driver, the allegation that the driver had committed an offence, and the meaning of a valid written notice. The court had also criticised aspects of the defendant’s conduct concerning notices of seizure.

5. The fair costs order was that the claimant should pay two thirds of the defendant’s costs, assessed at £4,854.40, payable within 21 days.

The judgment concerned consequential matters following this court’s judgment handed down on 23 July 2013. The judgment does not state a citation for that earlier judgment. The court directed that the disputed seizure issues should be determined in condemnation proceedings.