AC-2025-LON-000553 - [2025] EWHC 2616 (Admin)

Should the Deputy Judge’s “costs in the case” ruling be replaced with “no order as to costs, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings”?

Having considered the Defendant’s application to vary the Deputy Judge’s costs order, and Mr Fazli’s response to it, I declined to grant it. I was not content to proceed on an assumption that the Deputy Judge was unaware of (or had “overlooked”, as the Defendant put it) the Defendant’s written request for “no order as to costs”. It is equally if not more likely that he was well aware of the costs order sought, but did not find that proposal satisfactory. Relatedly, I am not persuaded that it would have been right to characterise the Defendant’s stance in these proceedings as having been entirely “neutral”. Its participation was limited, and its brief written submissions were moderate and careful. They assisted the Court. But at several points in the Summary Grounds of Resistance the Defendant sought to ‘push back’ on points made by the Claimant, both in relation to issues of fact and alleged errors said to have been made by the committee. It would not be right, I think, to treat the Defendant as having attained quite the same neutral status as a party who had taken no part in the proceedings at all, or who had merely responded saying that it was neutral as to the outcome. In any event, and in particular given the Claimant’s subsequent breach of a court order, I considered that the right course would be to leave any disputes about who should bear the costs of these proceedings until the conclusion of the case.