AC-2024-BHM-000217 - [2025] EWHC 2510 (Admin)

Fecha: 07-Oct-2025

Conclusions

CONCLUSION

98.

The application for judicial review is dismissed.

COSTS

99.

The Interested Party applies for its costs in the sum of £33,521.20. The principle that the Claimant should pay the Interested Party’s reasonable costs is not resisted.

100.

Mr James submits:

Eyre J reserved costs when he granted permission. The costs of the permission hearing should not be allowed, applying the general rule that the court will not make an order for costs against the claimant at the permission stage;

Further solicitors’ costs of £3,183.98 were reasonable;

Counsel’s fees for documents and the brief fee should be £9000.

101.

The basis for these submissions in that the maximum which was at risk for the Interested Party was £13,500. The costs schedule is disproportionate. The correct approach is to objectively assess “the lowest amount which it could reasonably have been expected to spend in order to have its case conducted and presented proficiently, having regard to all the relevant circumstances.”: Kazakhstan Kagazyp plc v Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus [2015] EWHC 404 (Comm) at [13] per Leggatt J, as he then was.

102.

Ms Lean submits:

The permission hearing resulted in ‘costs reserved’ not ‘claimant’s costs in the case’ and is an appropriate case to depart from the general position because the nature of Ground 3 clearly required the Interested Party to attend the permission hearing;

The Claimant does not contest the principle of the costs of the acknowledgment of service;

The Interested Party’s counsel had become a witness in the case and that required a change of counsel, with associated additional cost. A case with two counsel as witnesses is not an ordinary judicial review;

There were matters which had to be dealt with such as the application to add additional grounds.

103.

I accept Ms Lean’s submission that the Interested Party should have its costs of the acknowledgment of service which I summarily assess in the sum of £2000. I will not disturb the general approach to permission costs because I do not see anything which actually required the Interested Party to attend. I accept the basis of Mr James’ submissions as to proportionality. Proportionality in the resources to be directed to litigating a costs order of £13,500 is a particularly important consideration. Taking these points in the round, I have summarily assessed solicitors’ and counsel’s fees as £4500 and £10,000 respectively. The order shall therefore be that the Claimant shall pay the Interested Party’s costs in the sum of £16,500.