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

As I have indicated, the determinative issue in the case is whether or not Mr Khan had an opportunity to make submissions to the justices on the principle and quantum of the Interested Party’s costs application.

The Interested Party agrees that if this issue is decided in the Claimant’s favour, then there was an error of law. Those circumstances would be a breach of natural justice. It would plainly be unfair. It would be a failure to provide a hearing which was compliant with Article 6 of the European Convention.

However, the Interested Party does not concede that if such an error of law occurred that the impugned order should be quashed. The Interested Party argues that the outcome would be highly likely to be the same. This argument under s31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 raises questions of the extent of the costs jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court sitting in its civil jurisdiction, deciding whether to make a liability order, including as to costs.

The sum which is at large, on the Claimant’s best case, is £13,500. But the question of fundamental importance is whether the hearing of the costs application was in accordance with natural justice, or not.