CH-2025-BRS-000001 - [2025] EWHC 2373 (Ch)

Julian says that the judge “failed to provide adequate reasons for [his removal] and the associated costs orders, and in particular how he disregarded the correspondence”. This, he says, “undermines the transparency of fairness of the decision-making process and constitutes an error of law”. For the latter proposition he cites the decision of the Court of Appeal in English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409. I agree that that authority explains the obligation on a judge to give reasons for his or her decision, but, as the judgment of that court makes clear, that does not mean that the reasons have to be exhaustive, or that every factor that weighed with the court has to be explained. What is necessary will depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

In his skeleton argument, Julian says “There is complete failure to analyse the facts and provide proper reasons in the costs judgment … ” I am afraid that I disagree. The costs judgment, dealing with the decision in principle to award the respondents their costs, and the basis of assessment, covers some 27 paragraphs over five pages of the transcript. They contain much detailed reasoning and, in my judgment, more than adequately explained the judge’s decision on these matters. There is nothing in this ground of appeal.