AB v Social Work England

Costs ordinarily follow the event, but the court retains a broad discretion to consider all the circumstances, including partial success, party conduct and admissible settlement offers. A party may be the overall successful party even where some allegations are remitted following a concession, rather than determination on the merits. On summary assessment, the court applies the same principles as on detailed assessment. Recoverable costs must be reasonably incurred, reasonable in amount and proportionate. Where particular categories are excessive or unusual, a percentage reduction may provide a proportionate resolution.

The judgment concerned costs following the applicant’s appeal against Social Work England’s decision to remove her name from the Register of Social Workers. The substantive appeal was dismissed concerning Allegations 1 and 2, while Allegations 3, 4 and 5 were remitted to a differently constituted panel following the respondent’s concession. The interim suspension order remained in force.

The respondent sought its costs, relying on two settlement offers. The applicant disputed the respondent’s success, alleged unreasonable conduct and bad faith, and challenged the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs claimed. The central issues were which party was successful, whether summary assessment was appropriate, and what amount of costs should be recoverable.

1. Outcome. Social Work England was the successful party overall. The applicant succeeded only in obtaining remission of Allegations 3, 4 and 5 following the respondent’s concession, while the respondent succeeded in resisting the appeal concerning Allegations 1 and 2 and retained the interim suspension order.
2. The direction that future hearings be listed promptly did not constitute a better outcome than the respondent had previously offered, since the respondent had already indicated that it would seek prompt listing. The respondent was entitled to defend Allegations 1 and 2 and had acted reasonably in making the settlement offers. The applicant’s claims based on loss of chance, stress and reputation were outside the court’s costs jurisdiction.
3. The court exercised its discretion under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, including CPR 44.2. The general rule that costs follow the event applied, and the applicant’s criticisms of delay, bad faith and inequality of arms did not outweigh it.
4. Summary assessment under CPR 44.6 was appropriate. The court applied the indemnity principle and required costs to be reasonably incurred, reasonable in amount and proportionate. Applying the approach in West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220, the court assessed the totality and then reduced excessive categories of work.
5. The respondent’s pre-concession costs were reduced by 25% to £4,517.28, and its post-concession costs by 25% to £36,580.36. The total of £41,095.64 was payable by the applicant within 14 days.

• High Court (Administrative Court): In the substantive appeal, the court dismissed the appeal concerning Allegations 1 and 2 and remitted Allegations 3, 4 and 5 to a differently constituted panel in [2024] EWHC 1862 (Admin). The present judgment determined the consequential costs.