Golf Café Bars Limited v West Yorkshire Combined Authority & Anor

In a compulsory-purchase compensation reference, the usual position that costs are not awarded under the written representations procedure yields to the Tribunal’s established practice of awarding a successful claimant the costs reasonably incurred in establishing compensation. That practice gives effect to the principle of equivalence and prevents the claimant’s expenses from reducing the compensation award.

A company acting without professional representation may be a litigant in person. Under the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975, it may recover a reasonable sum for work connected with proceedings without proving pecuniary loss. The Tribunal may adopt the civil-court rate in CPR Practice Direction 46 where loss is unproved.

The claimant obtained compensation of £147,192 in a compulsory-purchase reference determined by written representations. It then sought Tribunal fees and £5,565 for 185.5 hours of work performed by its director, who had acted without legal representation.

The acquiring authority accepted liability for the application and determination fees, but contended that the written representations procedure ordinarily precluded a costs order. Alternatively, it sought a substantial reduction because the claimant recovered less than it had claimed. The central issues were whether the normal compulsory-purchase costs practice applied and what costs a corporate litigant in person could recover.

1. Costs were awarded. The claimant was entitled to recover its Tribunal fees and a reasonable sum for work done in the reference, totalling £5,498.84.

2. The indication in the Tribunal’s Practice Directions that costs will not normally be awarded under the written representations procedure did not displace paragraph 24.13. In compulsory-acquisition compensation cases, a successful claimant will normally recover the reasonable costs of establishing compensation. That approach reflects the principle of equivalence and avoids requiring a person deprived of property in the public interest to meet the expense of its claim from its compensation. There was no reason to depart from it.

3. Under Rule 10(14) of the Tribunal’s Procedure Rules, the Tribunal could order repayment of fees. The claimant therefore recovered the application fee and determination fee of £3,218.84.

4. The Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 applied to Upper Tribunal proceedings. A limited company without professional representation could be a litigant in person, consistently with R H Tomlinssons (Trowbridge) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, [1999] 2 BCLC 760. Unlike pre-reference expenditure claimed as compensation for loss, the statutory costs jurisdiction allowed payment for work done in connection with proceedings without proof of pecuniary loss.

5. The Tribunal adopted the civil-court approach in CPR 46.5(4)(b). It assessed reasonable time at 120 hours, being two thirds of the time claimed, and applied £19 per hour. It allowed £2,280 for the claimant’s costs.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): This was a costs determination following the substantive compensation decision in Golf Café Bars Limited v West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Network Rail, [2021] UKUT 0016 (LC).