Davies, R (on the application of) v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

Costs are governed by the general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party, subject to the court’s discretion under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 44.2. The discretion requires consideration of all the circumstances, including party conduct and admissible settlement offers. A successful claimant who obtained relief already offered by the defendant is ordinarily entitled to costs only until the offer should reasonably have been accepted, allowing a reasonable period for consideration. Costs may then be awarded against the claimant for continuing the proceedings. The court may also make costs follow the event on distinct grounds which were out of time, misconceived or unarguable.

This was a supplementary judgment on costs following the claimant’s judicial review claim against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The claimant succeeded on ground two, obtaining the quashing of a decision and referral of his complaint to the preliminary investigation committee. The defendant had previously offered that relief without prejudice save as to costs. The claimant lost on grounds one and three, including a claim brought out of time and a claim alleging a duty of care owed by the regulator.

The court had to determine the appropriate allocation of costs, including the effect of the defendant’s offers, the claimant’s conduct, and the relative merits of the grounds.

1. The general rule under rule 44.2 was that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs, but the court retained a broad discretion having regard to all the circumstances, including party conduct and admissible offers to settle.

2. On ground two, the claimant obtained no more relief than the defendant had offered in its letter of 22 July 2015. The claimant was therefore entitled to his reasonable costs only until the offer should reasonably have been accepted, together with a reasonable period for consideration.

3. Fourteen days was a reasonable period in the circumstances. The claimant could have obtained advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau or independent legal advisers within that period. His decision to continue after 5 August 2015 therefore had costs consequences.

4. The claimant’s objections concerning the composition of the preliminary investigation committee, further enquiries, and the conduct of the complaint process did not provide a reasonable basis for rejecting the offer. Those matters remained within the committee’s or defendant’s lawful discretion, subject to acting reasonably and in accordance with the published protocol.

5. The claimant lost on grounds one and three. Ground one was brought 15 months out of time without a valid explanation. Ground three was unarguable and misconceived. The court therefore ordered costs to follow the event on those grounds.

6. The claimant was entitled to his reasonable costs up to 5 August 2015. Thereafter he was liable for the defendant’s costs, subject to a 15 per cent reduction to reflect work relating to grounds one and three. Taking account of set-off, the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant £12,933.40.

not stated in the judgment.