Akhtar v Boland

The small claims costs rule applies to the costs of an appeal, including an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, where a claim remains allocated to the small claims track, the court cannot award appeal costs unless an exception in Rule 27.14(2) applies.

Rule 52.9A permits an appellate court to limit otherwise recoverable appeal costs. It does not create a power to award costs where another provision of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 precludes such an award.

The appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal from Judge Platts’s dismissal of his appeal against a district judge’s refusal to reallocate his claim from the small claims track to the fast track. The Court reserved the respondent’s costs of the appeal for determination on written submissions.

The respondent sought his costs because the appeal raised an issue of general practical importance and both parties were supported by commercial concerns. The central issue was whether Rules 27.14 and 52.9A of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 permitted the Court of Appeal to award costs against the unsuccessful appellant.

1. No order was made for the respondent’s costs of the appeal. Sir Stanley Burnton held that Rule 27.14 clearly precluded such an order. Floyd LJ and Gloster LJ agreed.

2. Rule 27.14 applies to any case allocated to the small claims track. Its restriction on recovering costs expressly includes costs relating to an appeal. There was no basis for treating that language as inapplicable to an appeal before the Court of Appeal. Otherwise, full costs could be awarded on appeals even where allocation to the small claims track was undisputed and indisputable.

3. None of the exceptions to the restriction in Rule 27.14(2) was said to apply. The fact that permission had been granted because the appeal raised an issue of general practical importance did not remove the restriction. Nor did the parties’ commercial backing or the apparent unfairness of exposing only the respondent to an adverse costs order alter the court’s powers.

4. Rule 52.9A enables an appellate court to limit the costs recoverable in proceedings where costs recovery is ordinarily limited or excluded at first instance. It does not confer an independent power to award costs where another provision of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 prohibits a costs order.

5. The court rejected as incorrect the commentary in the White Book stating that second appeals concerning small claims were subject to full costs shifting and that Rule 52.9A had been introduced to mitigate that position. Although Sir Stanley Burnton would otherwise have ordered the unsuccessful appellant to pay the respondent’s costs, the court unanimously concluded that Rule 27.14 required no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appellant’s appeal against the refusal to reallocate the claim had been unsuccessful. On the reserved costs issue, the court unanimously made no order for costs because Rule 27.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 precluded an award.

2. Manchester County Court: Judge Platts dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the district judge’s allocation decision.

3. District Judge: District Judge Fox refused to reallocate the claim to the fast track, leaving it in the small claims track.