City & Country Bramshill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Ors

An inspector’s costs jurisdiction is not governed by costs following the event. It arises only where one party has acted unreasonably and another has incurred unnecessary or wasted expense. Where success is confined to particular issues, the court may make an issue-based costs order. An interested party will not ordinarily receive a second award of costs merely because it participated in the proceedings. A separate award may be justified where the party was heard on a distinct issue or had an interest requiring separate representation.

The claimant challenged decisions concerning enforcement notice appeals and related planning matters. The court had previously found for the claimant on Ground 4, requiring the remission of Appeals 8 to 14 and 16 and the quashing of the inspector’s decision on Appeal 7. The court then dealt with the inspector’s costs decision, the allocation of costs in the proceedings, an application by Historic England for costs, and permission to appeal.

1. Substantive disposition. The enforcement notices were remitted to the inspector in relation to Appeals 8 to 14 and 16. The inspector’s decision on Appeal 7 was quashed, so that issue alone was to be redetermined. Appeals 4 to 6 were not reopened.
2. Inspector’s costs decision. The inspector’s jurisdiction was limited to cases involving unreasonable conduct by a party and unnecessary or wasted expense by another party. It was not an overall discretion based on costs following the event. The appeal against the existing costs decision was dismissed. Any unreasonable conduct during the fresh redetermination could be raised at its conclusion.
3. Issue-based costs. The claimant received its costs of the section 289 enforcement notice appeals and the section 288 application insofar as it concerned Appeal 7. The Secretary of State received its costs relating to Appeals 4 to 6.
4. Additional party. Applying Bolton, a second costs award will not generally be made merely because an interested party is the developer or has a financial interest. A separate issue or an interest requiring separate representation may justify an award. Historic England’s substantial assistance on heritage evidence justified 25 per cent of its costs, but not a full award.
5. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused. The court considered that the proposed grounds lacked a real prospect of success and did not disclose a compelling reason for an appeal. Points concerning the application of Dartford were matters for the Court of Appeal.

The judgment describes challenges to inspector decisions and a subsequent application for permission to appeal. No lower-court citation is stated in the judgment.