Assessment of the costs payable in relation to the judicial review proceedings
Assessment of the costs payable in relation to the judicial review proceedings
As we have indicated, the Claimant did not serve a costs schedule pending determination of whether he was entitled in principle to recover his costs. Unless the parties are able to agree a sum in respect of the recoverable costs (which we would encourage them to seek to do) there will need to be a detailed assessment.
Notwithstanding the findings in the substantive judgment as to the Interested Party’s conduct in the criminal proceedings below, we think it appropriate to order that the costs of the judicial review proceedings should be assessed on the standard basis. In reaching that conclusion, we recognise that Mr Westhead did accept that the summons should be quashed and that his conduct before the High Court went no further than a dogged insistence on airing his belief that the Claimant was guilty of criminal wrongdoing. We do not think that his conduct in the High Court crossed the line into something out of the norm such as to justify ordering assessment on the indemnity basis.
We currently have no indication of the quantum of the judicial review costs. We do note though the amount of the costs sought in the criminal proceedings. We have some reservations about the scale of those costs. Given the amount of time and expense reflected in the claim for costs in the magistrates’ court proceedings, we would not expect very significant amounts of additional work to have been required before issuing the claim for judicial review. The Costs Judge will wish to bear those observations in mind when conducting the assessment.
The Claimant gave an undertaking not to seek the additional costs associated with pursuing the application for costs. That was an appropriate concession. The application has involved detailed legal consideration in which Mr Westhead has played a limited part. The Claimant was not in a position to make representations on costs at the time of the original hearing so that a separate hearing was required. The Claimant will remain bound by his undertaking to limit his costs in that way.
- Heading
- Lady Justice Whipple and Lady Justice Yip
- The Claimant’s position
- The Interested Party’s response to the applications
- The Advocate to the Court’s stance on the Murphy principle
- The issues arising
- The costs of the judicial review proceedings
- The Civil Procedure Rules
- Section 28 A of the Senior Courts Act 1981
- The criminal costs regime and its application in the High Court
- The Murphy principle
- The development of the law since Murphy
- Cases which do not support the Murphy principle
- Overview of the authorities
- The legislative history
- The criminal costs regime
- Does the 1985 Act oust the jurisdiction to award costs under section 51 of the 1981 Act ?
- Does section 51(5) of the 1981 Act preclude awarding costs under the civil regime?
- Is there a requirement for exceptionality before making an order for inter partes costs pursuant to section 51 in a criminal cause or matter?
- How should the discretion under section 51 be exercised in this case?
- Assessment of the costs payable in relation to the judicial review proceedings
- The costs of the proceedings in the magistrates’ court
- Conclusions
![AC-2024-LON-003165 - [2025] EWHC 2532 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)