AC-2024-LON-000883 - [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin)

SIAC’s interpretation would mean that its power to award costs was unfettered in the sense that parties to SIAC review proceedings could look neither to primary legislation nor to SIAC procedure rules in order to ascertain when and how its costs jurisdiction is to be exercised. Parties appearing in SIAC are entitled to know the criteria and procedures for costs. Those criteria and procedures are more transparently and effectively laid down by the Lord Chancellor in detailed procedure rules made under section 5. In the absence of procedure rules, SIAC would have such broad discretions in the area of costs as to be unconducive to the interests of legal certainty (McCaffrey, paras 74-75, above).

We also agree that SIAC “is not institutionally well-equipped to engage in setting up a costs regime” (McCaffrey, para 76, above, in the context of the IPT but equally applicable to SIAC). The institutional inability to establish a costs regime is illustrated by the present case. In the absence of procedure rules for the assessment of FGF’s costs, SIAC transferred any assessment proceedings to the High Court. Counsel were unable to cast light on the power under which SIAC transferred FGF’s case to a different court. No processes or procedures in the High Court exist for dealing with costs in SIAC.