Notting Hill Genesis, R (On the Application Of) v Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court

When a magistrates’ court assesses prosecution costs under section 82(12) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it must address the individual challenges advanced and give adequate reasons. A general finding that costs are reasonable is insufficient where the paying party identifies particular concerns, such as the use of senior fee-earners, excessive time, pre-proceedings work, post-trial work or a conditional fee agreement.

The court must also consider whether the costs bear a reasonable relationship to both monetary and non-monetary compensation. The absence of a direct mathematical equivalence does not remove the need for such consideration. Where the reasons are materially inadequate, the decision should be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Notting Hill Genesis sought judicial review of a costs order made by Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court after the settlement of a prosecution brought by Holly Smith under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The settlement included rehousing, compensation of £2,500 and payment of the prosecutor’s reasonable legal fees.

The parties could not agree the fees. The magistrates ordered payment of £21,052.80 to the prosecutor’s solicitors. They later refused to state a case. The claimant challenged the costs decision on irrationality, proportionality, inadequate reasons and jurisdictional grounds.

1. The claim succeeded. The magistrates’ costs decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted Bench.
2. The magistrates failed to deal with the claimant’s detailed submissions individually. In particular, they did not properly consider whether the extensive use of Grade A fee-earners was reasonable, despite the claimant’s argument that the work was routine and could have been undertaken by more junior staff. A general finding that the costs were properly incurred and reasonable did not adequately address that issue.
3. The magistrates also erred in treating the compensation and costs as having no necessary direct correlation. The court accepted that non-financial elements, including rehousing, could be taken into account. However, the decision-maker still had to consider whether the level of costs bore a reasonable relationship to the monetary and non-monetary compensation. The court drew an arguable analogy with CPR 44.3(2) and CPR 44.3(5), including the factors of sums in issue, non-monetary relief, complexity, additional work caused by the paying party and wider factors.
4. The magistrates did not address two further material matters: whether section 82(12) permitted recovery of expenses incurred before proceedings or after the trial date, and whether the unusually high costs required consideration of the conditional fee agreement.
5. The challenge to payment directly to Clarke Barnes was largely academic, but the solicitors were not parties to the litigation and the jurisdiction for directing payment to them was unclear. The High Court declined to assess the costs itself or prescribe a figure because the necessary material was not before it.

The judgment itself describes an earlier refusal by Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court to state a case. The High Court granted judicial review permission and quashed the magistrates’ costs order, remitting the matter to a differently constituted Bench.