R (Gopikrishna) v OIA

The claimant obtained judicial review relief in the form of an order quashing the decision of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (the Defendant), although not all relief sought was granted. The court applied the ordinary rule that costs follow the event as expressed in CPR Part 44, but exercised its discretion by having regard to the conduct of the parties under CPR 44.2(4) and (5). The judge found that the Defendant and the University had actively resisted the claim, that the University had committed procedural errors and failed to disclose material documents, and that those factors justified departing from the usual rule that an interested party is not ordered to pay. The court concluded that an issue-by-issue apportionment would be impractical because the issues were closely intertwined and awarded two-thirds of the claimant's costs, to be paid in equal shares by the Defendant and the University, with a detailed assessment of the publicly funded costs of the other interested parties.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. The University of Leicester and three named individuals were interested parties. The claimant succeeded in obtaining an order quashing the OIA decision (the principal relief) but did not obtain all the relief sought and lost on several discrete grounds.

Background and parties:

• The claimant applied for judicial review challenging the Defendant's decision arising from university proceedings; the University and other individuals participated as interested parties.
• All parties filed written submissions on costs only; none were represented by counsel at the hearing of 20 March 2015.

Relief sought: The claimant sought quashing of the Defendant's decision and ancillary relief; the court granted a quashing order but not the entirety of the claimant's case.

Main issues litigated:

• Whether the claimant had a viable Equality Act 2010 point (the court found that point occupied little time and the claimant did not succeed on it).
• Whether exceptional circumstances (including the claimant's mental state and possible dyslexia) were established — the court rejected that contention.
• Allegations of procedural unfairness, including matters around a letter of 11 June 2013 and the absence of Dr Clarke at the Termination of Course Review Panel.
• Whether the conduct of the Defendant and the University justified departure from the usual costs rule.

Court's reasoning on costs: The court reviewed authorities establishing the starting point that costs follow the event and recognised the discretion under CPR Part 44 to depart from that rule having regard to all the circumstances, including conduct and compliance with pre-action protocols. The judge found the claimant had been largely successful on the matters most contested at the hearing. The University had been actively involved, had committed procedural breaches, had adduced evidence rejected by the court, and had failed to disclose relevant correspondence. The Defendant had opportunities to concede after disclosure of an important error of fact but chose to continue to litigate and lost. The issues were too intertwined for a sensible issue-by-issue apportionment. For those reasons, the court awarded two-thirds of the claimant's costs, to be borne equally by the Defendant and the University, and ordered a detailed assessment of the publicly funded costs of the other interested parties.

Wider context: The judgment applied established principles on costs in judicial review proceedings, emphasising that public authorities receive no special treatment and that conduct and pre-action compliance are material to discretionary costs decisions.

The court awarded the claimant two-thirds of her costs and ordered that the Defendant and the University pay those costs in equal shares. The court reached that conclusion because the claimant was largely successful on the key contested matters, the Defendant and the University actively resisted the claim (the University committing procedural breaches and failing to disclose material documents), and an issue-by-issue apportionment was impractical given the interwoven nature of the issues.