Wheeler v Norfolk County Council

A magistrates’ court’s statutory power to award costs is confined by the terms of the empowering provision. Under section 64 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, costs may be ordered between the complainant and defendant. A person given a right to be heard in highway-obstruction proceedings does not thereby become a defendant or acquire the status needed for a costs order. Authorities concerned with the exercise of an existing costs jurisdiction do not enlarge that jurisdiction. An order made outside the statutory limits is liable to be quashed.

The appellant challenged by way of case stated an order made by Norwich Magistrates’ Court on 12 September 2013. The magistrates had dismissed his application concerning an allegedly obstructed footpath and ordered him to pay costs to the person alleged to be responsible for the obstruction.

The application arose under sections 130 and 130A of the Highways Act 1980. The central issue was whether the magistrates had jurisdiction under section 64 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to award costs to a person who had a right to be heard but was not the defendant.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ costs order in favour of Mr Dixon was quashed.
2. Section 64(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 permits a magistrates’ court, on dismissing a complaint, to order costs payable by the complainant to the defendant. The wording confines the jurisdiction to costs orders between the parties occupying the statutory positions of complainant and defendant.
3. The highway-obstruction provisions did not alter that conclusion. Section 130C(6) of the Highways Act 1980 gave the person allegedly responsible for the obstruction a right to be heard on specified matters. It did not make that person a defendant or confer jurisdiction to award costs in his favour.
4. The magistrates had relied on Perinpanathan, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2010] 4 All ER 680. That decision concerned the principles governing the exercise of a costs jurisdiction which already existed. It did not determine the scope of the jurisdiction in the present type of case and could not overcome the precise wording of section 64.
5. The court declined the appellant’s ancillary application for costs against the magistrates. The stringent rule governing such orders was not satisfied, and the proposed remittal of further costs issues would have generated disproportionate and fruitless litigation.

• Norwich Magistrates’ Court: On 12 September 2013, dismissed the appellant’s highway-obstruction application and ordered him to pay costs to the person alleged to be responsible for the obstruction.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal by way of case stated and quashed the costs order.