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

On 17 December 2024 the Claimant sent a letter before action. On 21 January 2025 the Defendant’s solicitors responded, indicating that the Defendant would not be taking an active stance in the proceedings, if brought, as it regarded itself as having a “neutral” role, analogous to that of a court or tribunal.

Judicial review proceedings were commenced on 4 February 2025. The Claimant sought a quashing order and a declaration that the Decision was made unlawfully. Three JR Grounds were pleaded.

The Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service, incorporating the standard document used to resist permission (“Summary Grounds for Contesting the Claim”). The Defendant stated that it intended only to make neutral submissions about the facts and the law, e.g. to assist the Court to understand why the Decision was made, and to take no further active part in the proceedings. The Defendant also asked the Court to rule that no order for costs should be made either in favour of or against it, relying on the case of R (Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham [2004] EWCA Civ 207.

Permission was initially refused, on 10 April 2025, by David Pittaway KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. Relevantly, Mr Pittaway KC made “no order as to costs”. The Claimant renewed the application for permission, and after an oral hearing on 17 June 2025 permission was granted - in respect of Grounds 1 and 3 only - by Mr Alan Bates sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

The Deputy Judge made directions, and these were recorded in his Order, which was processed and sent out on 25 June 2025. These included (at paragraph 5) a requirement for the Claimant to file and serve a hearing bundle by no later than 21 days before the substantive hearing, and (at paragraph 6) a requirement for the Claimant to file and serve a skeleton argument no later than 14 days before the substantive hearing.

The Deputy Judge also made the following costs order: “costs in the case”. The Defendant has subsequently applied to vary this aspect of the Deputy Judge’s order. The Defendant contends that the Deputy Judge made an error when saying “costs in the case”, and seeks variation of the order so that it provides for “no order for costs against the Defendant irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings”.