Taylor v Honiton Town Council & Anor

Although the general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs, the court may depart from it where the parties’ conduct makes that necessary in the interests of justice. Conduct after the dispute has arisen will usually carry greater weight than conduct which caused the dispute. The costs jurisdiction also encourages parties to resolve litigation promptly. A party who unreasonably rejects an offer providing the substantive relief and costs to which that party is entitled may recover only costs incurred before the offer, and may be ordered to pay the opponent’s later costs.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings concerning sanctions imposed by Honiton Town Council following a finding by East Devon District Council that he had breached the Code of Conduct. The substantive claim resulted in the quashing of the sanctions decision, as recorded in the judgment at [2016] EWHC 3307 (Admin). The costs issue was reserved for oral argument.

The court considered the parties’ correspondence, including repeated offers by the defendant to provide the substantive relief and pay the claimant’s costs. The central issue was whether the claimant’s conduct in issuing and continuing the proceedings justified departing from the general rule on costs, and how the costs should be apportioned.

1. The claimant had succeeded in securing the quashing of the sanctions decision, but the court was entitled to depart from the general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. The relevant discretion had to be exercised by reference to the parties’ conduct and the justice of the case.

2. Conduct in dealing with the dispute after it arose was generally more relevant than conduct which caused the original dispute, although that was not an inflexible rule. The claimant’s proceedings had been issued too quickly because of an unfounded concern about a time limit. The subsequent correspondence contained an inappropriate allegation of dishonesty and showed that the claimant had failed to make a genuine attempt to compromise the proceedings.

3. Honiton had substantially resolved the dispute by 26 February 2016, before proceedings were issued. Its offers of 19 March and 29 March 2016 provided the relief to which the claimant was entitled and offered payment of his costs. The claimant achieved nothing of value after that point. His continued pursuit of an assurance that he would never be censured or that the censure would not be published was unsuccessful and involved arguments lacking merit.

4. The court nevertheless recognised that the claimant had obtained the quashing of a decision imposed under an unsatisfactory policy adopted contrary to officers’ advice. The appropriate order was therefore a partial departure from the general rule: the defendant was to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis up to and including 19 March 2016, and the claimant was to pay the defendant’s costs on the standard basis incurred on and after 20 March 2016.

This was a first-instance costs judgment following the court’s substantive judicial review judgment at [2016] EWHC 3307 (Admin). The present judgment determined the parties’ liability for costs and the relevant period of assessment.