Hucklebridge Engineering Ltd, R (on the application of) v Sussex Police

A Crown Court hearing a statutory appeal may make an order for costs before determining the appeal where the applicable costs rule imposes no requirement to wait until final determination. The court must identify the statutory or rule-based power being used and apply its specific criteria. Under rule 45.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, the Crown Court has a broad discretion to order and assess costs on an appeal. A different, potentially preferable course for dealing with costs does not make the chosen course unlawful if it remains within the legitimate boundaries of that discretion.

The claimant had appealed to the Crown Court against refusal of registration as a firearms dealer. After the part-heard appeal was abandoned because it could not be completed within the available arrangements, the Crown Court ordered the claimant to pay 60 per cent of the Chief Constable’s costs incurred to that stage.

Permission for judicial review was granted on the narrow issue whether the Crown Court had jurisdiction to make a costs order before the statutory appeal concluded. The central issue was whether the applicable costs regime required costs to be determined only at the end of the appeal.

1. The application was refused. The Crown Court’s costs order was probably made under rule 45.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, formerly rule 76.6 of the 2012 Rules.
2. The Crown Court is a creature of statute and has no inherent powers. When making a costs order it must identify the statutory or rule-based power being exercised and apply the criteria relevant to that power. Legal representatives should identify the applicable provisions when making the application.
3. Section 52 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 permits rules of court to confer and regulate costs powers. Rule 45.6 confers a broad discretion to order one party to pay another party’s costs on an appeal to the Crown Court, whether on application or on the court’s own initiative. It contains no restriction requiring the order to be made only when the appeal is determined.
4. The Crown Court was entitled to consider the conduct of the proceedings and conclude that, absent Mr Perkins’s conduct, the appeal could have been completed within the originally allocated three days. On the evidence, it remained within the legitimate boundaries of its discretion to order payment of 60 per cent of the costs incurred.
5. The availability of another method or timing for dealing with costs, including reserving costs until the end of the appeal, did not make the course adopted unlawful.

Permission to proceed with judicial review was granted by Philip Mott QC on 14 January 2015 on the narrow jurisdictional issue. The substantive judicial review application was subsequently heard by Mr Justice Hickinbottom, who refused it.