Segar & Anor, R (on the application of) v Wychavon District Council

Following settlement of judicial review proceedings, the court retains a broad discretion over costs. A claimant who has broadly secured the relief sought will ordinarily be the starting-point recipient of costs, but the court must consider the whole history of the matter.

Relevant factors may include unreasonable shortening of the pre-action response period, failure to obtain reasonably available independent evidence before issuing proceedings, and the timing of the defendant’s concession. Those matters may justify reducing the proportion of costs recovered, even where the claimant is entitled to costs in principle.

The claimants brought judicial review proceedings concerning the defendant local authority’s exercise of its discretionary powers under section 173(a)(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to an enforcement notice concerning gates and pillars.

Permission was granted on 18 November 2014. The proceedings were subsequently settled, and the court approved a draft order subject to argument on costs. The central issue was whether the claimants, who had broadly obtained the relief sought, should recover all their costs or a reduced proportion.

1. The court considered the costs issue by taking a broad view of the history of the case. The starting point was that the claimants, having been broadly successful and having obtained the relief sought, were entitled to their costs in principle.
2. That starting point did not determine the amount recoverable. The claimants had allowed only three days for compliance with the pre-action protocol letter. Although no fixed period was required, good practice generally called for a sensible period, often 14 days. The lengthy preceding correspondence did not justify leaving the defendant so little time to respond.
3. The defendant’s reluctance to accept the claimants’ assertions without independent evidence was understandable. The relevant builder’s statement was obtained only after proceedings had been issued, although the claimants had recognised that independent evidence would be important and had not satisfactorily explained why it could not have been obtained earlier.
4. Against those matters, the defendant did not concede the relief sought until some time after receiving the evidence. Weighing the competing considerations, the appropriate order was for the defendant to pay 75 per cent of the claimants’ costs, subject to detailed assessment.
5. The defendant was also ordered to pay £20,000 on account of costs, plus VAT, within 14 days.

The judgment records that permission for the judicial review proceedings was granted by Rhodri Price Lewis QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 18 November 2014. The proceedings were then settled. This judgment determined the outstanding costs issues.