[2025] UKUT 00154 (IAC)

R (on the application of IX) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Judicial review; costs)

Field House,

Breams Buildings

London, EC4A 1WR

Promulgated: 23 April 2025

Before:

THE HON. MR JUSTICE SWIFT

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SMITH

Between:

THE KING

on the application of

IX

[ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE]

Applicant

- and -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Mr C Buttler KC and Mr A Bandegani

(instructed by Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants), for the Applicant

Ms J Anderson

(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Respondent

1. The general rule (at CPR 44.2(3)) is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. Costs are said to “follow the event”, with the event being the outcome of the trial. Where proceedings have been issued but have come to an end before trial, the general rule still applies.

2. When considering the application of the approaches referred to in the case-law it is important to have in mind that the need to decide such costs applications can arise in a range of different circumstances. The approaches set out in the case-law must be applied in ways that reflect the circumstances before the court rather than merely slavishly.

3. In setting out his 3 categories in R (M) v Croydon LBC [2012] 1 WLR 2607, Lord Neuberger intended to do no more than, by reference to 3 broadly-defined classes, provide guidance on how the general rule might apply where a costs application is made in circumstances where a trial is no longer required. He did not intend anything approaching prescription or codification.

4. There will be some cases where it is apparent from context that the action the defendant has agreed to take which is relied on as removing the need for the litigation to continue, will support or even require the conclusion that the applicant has been wholly successful. But context can be important.

5. There is nothing in M or in any other of the authorities that requires a tribunal to take a special approach when deciding where costs should fall in situations where a claim has been compromised and, for that purpose, decline to consider relevant matters. The tribunal’s costs jurisdiction is the same regardless of whether it falls to be exercised after a contested trial or following a compromise. The overriding objective is to do justice between the parties, in accordance with the application of any relevant court rules, without incurring unnecessary court time and consequently additional cost. That does not require a tribunal to disregard information that is relevant and is available when the decision falls to be made.

JUDGMENT