Public and Commercial Services Union, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Supplementary Judgment: Costs of the Appeal)

The absence of a costs schedule does not, by itself, deprive a successful party in an appeal of an order for costs to be assessed in detail. Where the rules require a schedule, it must be filed, but the court retains discretion as to the consequences of non-compliance. An order for detailed assessment ordinarily leaves each party able to protect its position on the assessment costs by making an appropriate offer, which may later be shown to the costs judge if effective.

The appeal had been dismissed on 16 December 2025. The Secretary of State then sought an order that the appellant pay the appeal costs, to be assessed in detail if not agreed. No costs schedule had been served before the hearing.

The appellant argued that the absence of a schedule required no order for costs, relying on R (Kuznetsov) v Camden LBC and Practice Direction 44 PD 9.2 and 9.5. Alternatively, it argued that the respondent should bear the costs of any detailed assessment, relying on a textbook account of Wheeler v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary. The central issue was the appropriate costs order in those circumstances.

1. Disposition. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in the Court of Appeal, to be assessed in detail on the standard basis if not agreed.
2. Practice Direction 44 PD 9.2 and 9.5 state the general rule that the court must make a summary assessment at the conclusion of qualifying hearings and that parties and their legal representatives must assist by preparing a written costs statement. Where the rules require a schedule, it must be filed.
3. Failure to serve a costs schedule does not, in itself, justify depriving the successful party of an order for costs to be assessed in detail. The court noted that, in full-day appeals where judgment is reserved, schedules are not uncommonly absent.
4. The court rejected reliance on R (Kuznetsov) v Camden LBC, stating that views expressed in the Administrative Court do not guide practice in the Court of Appeal. It also declined to rely on the textbook account of Wheeler v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary, because the available transcript contained no costs decision and the reported material provided only a single sentence mention.
5. An apparently unusual costs order in Wheeler might have reflected special factors. Where detailed assessment is ordered, either party may protect its position concerning the assessment costs by making an appropriate offer to accept or pay a specified amount, which may be placed before the costs judge if it proves effective.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The substantive appeal against the order of HHJ Jarman KC was dismissed on 16 December 2025. In this supplementary judgment, the court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs, to be assessed in detail on the standard basis if not agreed.