Key Facts
- •Applicants sought to cancel a mental health crisis moratorium for the First Respondent under the Debt Respite Scheme Regulations 2020.
- •The moratorium ended on 22 July 2023 due to the First Respondent no longer meeting the criteria.
- •The application's progress was delayed, leading to a consideration of outstanding issues, primarily costs.
- •Questions arose about the proper service of the application on the Third Respondent (NHS Trust).
- •Applicants sought costs from Respondents, arguing the First Respondent never met the moratorium criteria.
- •Respondents argued against costs orders, citing the moratorium's end and lack of a proper basis for deciding success.
Legal Principles
The court has discretion to make a costs order, but it must have a proper basis of agreed or determined facts to do so.
CPR 44.3(1)(a), 44.3(2), BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer & Sons Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 939
The court should be slow to determine disputed facts solely for making a costs order, particularly when no judgment has been reached on the substantive issues.
BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer & Sons Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 939
Even without a judgment on substantive issues, a judge can rule on costs using a more summary procedure; however, the judge is not obligated to determine disputed facts solely for costs.
Coyne v DRC Distribution Ltd [2008] BCC 612, CA; Powles v Reeves [2016] EWCA Civ 1375
Outcomes
No order as to costs was made.
The court lacked a proper basis to determine who was the successful party. Resolving the factual disputes necessary to award costs would essentially retry the substantive application, which is inefficient given the moratorium's termination. The court considered the extensive pre-existing litigation between the parties and determined that further investment of resources was not justified.