Awodola v Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (Costs)

In assessing costs, the court must exercise its discretion by considering all the circumstances, including the parties’ conduct, partial success and admissible settlement offers. A successful litigant in person is entitled only to reasonable and proportionate costs. Time spent on duplicative, unnecessary or meritless points may be excluded. Where there is an appreciable risk that costs paid to a successful claimant could not be recovered if the decision is reversed, enforcement of part of the costs order may be stayed. Permission to appeal requires either a real prospect of success or some other compelling reason.

The claimant had succeeded in a substantive judicial review concerning which version of the defendant’s disciplinary rules governed his application for reconsideration of permission to appeal. This further judgment determined the claimant’s costs claim and the defendant’s application for permission to appeal.

The claimant, mainly acting in person but assisted pro bono at the hearing, claimed substantial litigant-in-person costs and a pro bono costs order. The defendant challenged the amount, sought a stay, and applied for permission to appeal the substantive determination.

1. Costs. The general rule under CPR r.44.2 was that the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party’s costs, subject to the court’s discretion having regard to all the circumstances, including conduct, partial success and admissible settlement offers. The claimant had succeeded, but his presentation had generated unnecessary volume, duplication and meritless points.
2. The court treated the claim as a straightforward issue of construction. The claimant’s reasonable preparation time as a litigant in person was assessed at 150 hours, producing £2,850 at £19 per hour. A pro bono costs order of £2,520 inclusive of VAT was also made under Legal Services Act 2007, s 194, and CPR r.46.7. The total costs award was therefore £5,370.
3. In assessing conduct, the court noted the Court of Appeal’s criticism of prolixity and complexity in judicial review proceedings in R (Dolan and Monks) v SoS for Health & Social Care and SoS for Education [2020] EWCA Civ 1605. Similar unnecessary complication was present here and justified limiting the award.
4. A stay was granted for the £2,850 litigant-in-person element. There was an appreciable risk that the claimant could not repay it if the defendant succeeded on appeal or recovered costs after reconsideration by its Appeal Committee. The £2,520 pro bono costs payment was not stayed.
5. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused under CPR r.52.6(1)(a) and (b). The defendant had not shown a real prospect that the determination was wrong, and the proposed wider implications concerned matters not before the court. The time for seeking permission from the Court of Appeal was extended to 23 December 2020.

The judgment records a prior substantive judicial review determination in the same High Court proceedings. The present judgment concerns consequential costs and permission to appeal. No citation for the substantive determination is stated.