Key Facts
- •Claimant (CVN), an unaccompanied child asylum seeker, challenged the defendant local authority's decision to end his accommodation and support.
- •Claimant successfully quashed the decision after a fully contested hearing.
- •The court considered costs following the substantive judgment.
- •Claimant sought indemnity costs; defendant argued for no order or only costs after July 2022.
- •The case involved the interpretation of the ACO Costs Guidance and the application of cost principles in judicial review cases.
Legal Principles
In judicial review cases where a claimant is wholly successful after a contested hearing, costs usually follow the event unless there's a good reason to the contrary.
R (M) v Croydon LBC [2012] 1 WLR 2607 (CA)
The court has discretion over costs (CPR 44.2).
CPR 44.2
Indemnity costs are awarded only in exceptional circumstances where the conduct of a party is 'out of the norm' or 'something outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of proceedings'.
Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 879; Esure Services Ltd v Quarcoo [2009] EWCA Civ 595
Local authorities have a duty to support eligible children, even after they turn 18.
R (GE (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1490
Outcomes
Defendant to pay claimant's costs on the standard basis.
Claimant was wholly successful; defendant failed to provide sufficient justification for departing from the usual costs order. Defendant's shifting arguments and late concessions did not meet the threshold for indemnity costs.
Claimant's request for indemnity costs rejected.
Defendant's conduct, while suboptimal, did not reach the high threshold required for indemnity costs.