AK, R (on application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Consequential Judgment)

In consequential proceedings, corrections to a circulated judgment may be accepted where they clarify agreed issues, factual summaries or typographical matters without altering the substantive reasoning. Such corrections do not necessarily create an arguable ground of appeal. Where a claimant succeeds on the ground occupying most of the court’s time but fails on two other argued grounds, the costs award may be reduced to reflect that limited success.

The judgment dealt with consequential matters following the court’s substantive judgment on a judicial review claim. The court considered proposed corrections to the circulated judgment, the claimant’s application for permission to appeal, and the appropriate costs order. The central questions were whether the corrections affected the substance of the decision or disclosed an arguable appealable issue, and how the claimant’s partial success should affect costs.

1. Corrections. The court accepted corrections concerning the agreed list of issues, factual summaries inadvertently copied into the draft, clarification and typographical matters. The corrections did not alter the substantive treatment of the issues.
2. Permission to appeal. The accepted corrections did not give rise to an arguable ground of appeal and had no bearing on the central issue raised by Ground 1, on which the claimant had succeeded. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.
3. Costs. The claimant was the overall winner on the ground that occupied most of the court’s time. The claimant had nevertheless failed on two grounds that were advanced and argued. The court reduced the costs award by 25% to reflect that partial failure.

The judgment records consequential proceedings following the court’s substantive judgment, but gives no citation for that earlier decision. Permission to appeal was refused by the High Court.