Dickinson & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue And Customs

Where permission to appeal is sought on grounds conveniently considered by the Court of Appeal, the High Court may refuse permission and leave the application to that court. Interim relief may be continued by agreement pending an application for permission or, if permission is granted, determination of the appeal. A costs order may depart from the usual result where the successful party’s conduct, including serious administrative shortcomings and unexplained delay, materially contributed to the litigation.

The claim for judicial review had been dismissed in a judgment handed down on 7 July 2017. The claimants then sought permission to appeal, continuation of interim relief made in June 2015, and an order that the parties bear their own costs. The Revenue did not oppose continuation of the interim relief but reserved its position concerning the evidence of hardship. The remaining issues concerned the proper forum for the permission application, the duration of interim protection, and the appropriate costs order.

1. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused. Given the nature of the grounds advanced, the application should be made to the Court of Appeal. That court could conveniently address issues concerning the timing of the application by reference to the delivery of its judgments in the appeals in Walapu and Vital Nut. It was also the only court able to deal with expedition if permission were granted.
2. Interim relief. By agreement, paragraphs 2 to 7 of the order made on 25 June 2015 were continued until determination of any in-time application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal or, if permission were granted, until determination of the appeal. Liberty to apply was preserved so that the order could be varied if required, including in relation to the evidence of hardship.
3. Costs. Existing costs orders remained in force. Although the Revenue had won the case, no order was made as to the balance of costs. The Revenue had lost on its main argument, its approach had effectively ignored basic principles of good administration, there had been lengthy delays for which the claimants were not responsible, and the Revenue’s evidence explaining the delays and change of position lacked clarity and focus. Those matters justified departing from the usual costs outcome.

The claim was dismissed by this court in a judgment handed down on 7 July 2017. In the present judgment, permission to appeal was refused, with the court directing that any application should be made to the Court of Appeal.