AC-2024-LON-003165 - [2025] EWHC 2532 (Admin)

The way that Mr Westhead conducted himself in relation to the application for a summons has a bearing upon the application for the costs of the proceedings in the magistrates’ court. We consider that the way in which the application in the magistrates’ court was made amounts to “unnecessary or improper act or omission” within the meaning of section 19 of the 1985 Act.

In those circumstances, regulation 3(1) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 allows the magistrates’ court, after hearing the parties, to make an order that all or part of the costs so incurred by Mr Bates should be paid by Mr Westhead. Pursuant to regulation 3(3), any order made pursuant to regulation 3(1) shall specify the amount of costs to be paid.

Pursuant to section 66 of the Courts Act 2003, a judge of the High Court has the powers of a District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) in relation to criminal causes or matters. Mr Darbishire invites us to exercise that power to make an order that Mr Westhead pay Mr Bates’ costs of the proceedings below.

We accept that it is within our power to make such an order. We consider that it is appropriate that such an order should be made given the findings set out in the substantive judgment. However, we did not hear full submissions on the application, in particular as to the amount of costs which it would be reasonable to order Mr Westhead to pay. We consider that determination of the amount of costs which Mr Westhead should be ordered to pay pursuant to the provisions of regulation 3 of the 1986 Regulations would be better dealt with in the magistrates’ court by a District Judge, experienced in dealing with applications for costs in proceedings in that court. To comply with regulation 3(3) that determination must be made before making any order under regulation 3(1). On that basis we remit the application for costs to the magistrates’ court.