The Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Northampton Magistrates Court
[2024] EWHC 2324 (Admin)
Exolum Pipeline System Ltd, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Great Grimsby
10 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2811 (Admin)
High Court
A company was ordered to pay court costs after a trial was abandoned. They argued the judge made a mistake. The higher court looked at the judge's decision and said the judge didn't make a big enough mistake to overturn the decision, so the company still has to pay.
Key Facts
- •Exolum Pipeline System Ltd challenged a Crown Court costs order made against them under Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986.
- •The case concerned the abandonment of a crown court trial due to an Official Secrets Act issue raised late by the defense.
- •The Crown Court ordered Exolum to pay £69,650.18 in costs to the HSE.
- •The central issue was whether the costs order was vitiated by a public law error, specifically regarding the causation precondition in Regulation 3.
- •The High Court considered the extent of its supervisory jurisdiction over Crown Court decisions, particularly regarding 'matters relating to trial on indictment'.
Legal Principles
Regulation 3(1)(b) allows costs orders if one party incurs costs due to another's unnecessary or improper act or omission.
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986
Judicial review is available for public law errors by inferior courts, but this jurisdiction is subject to limitations, especially in relation to Crown Court trials.
Common law and Senior Courts Act 1981, section 29(3)
Section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 limits the High Court's jurisdiction to quash Crown Court decisions relating to trials on indictment, but a line of cases (Harrow (Maidstone) line) has established exceptions.
Senior Courts Act 1981
The High Court's jurisdiction in relation to Crown Court decisions regarding trial on indictment must balance respecting parliamentary intent with upholding the rule of law.
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28 and R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22
Public law errors include failure to ask the required question, unreasonable decisions, conclusions unsupported by evidence, and misdirections in law.
Various case law cited in the judgment
A costs order under Regulation 3 requires satisfying the causation precondition: that costs were incurred as a result of the improper act/omission.
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986
Outcomes
The High Court dismissed Exolum's claim.
The Judge's conclusion regarding the causation precondition, while not explicitly addressing all counterfactuals raised by Exolum, did not involve a material public law error. The Judge's direct knowledge of the trial's progress and the reasons provided were deemed sufficient.
The High Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The claim fell under the Intermediate Basis of jurisdiction, allowing judicial review for public law errors in Crown Court decisions relating to trials on indictment, provided it doesn't undermine the core purposes of s.29(3) (avoiding interlocutory appeals delaying the trial, and respecting the appeal mechanisms for verdicts/sentences).
Similar Cases
Director of Public Prosecutions v Northampton Magistrates' Court
[2024] EWHC 2860 (Admin)
Ineos Upstream Limited v Joseph Boyd & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 214 (Ch)
City Portfolio Ltd, R (on the application of) v Lancaster City Council
[2023] EWHC 1991 (Admin)
Alexander Gorbachev v Andrey Grigoreyvich Guriev
[2023] EWCA Civ 327