![AC-2024-LON-003165 - [2025] EWHC 2532 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
The Advocate to the Court’s stance on the Murphy principle
The Advocate to the Court’s stance on the Murphy principle
We are grateful that the Attorney-General accepted the Court’s invitation to appoint an Advocate to the Court and to Mr Paul Jarvis KC, who fulfilled that role providing us with written and oral submissions on the Murphy principle. Mr Jarvis invited us to conclude that the Murphy principle was not wrong in law and that the High Court should not depart from it.
- 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