CVN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
[2023] EWHC 865 (Admin)
City Portfolio Ltd, R (on the application of) v Lancaster City Council
3 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 1991 (Admin)
High Court
A company sued the council for making a quick decision without public input. The council then did a public consultation and changed its decision. The court said the lawsuit made the council change its mind, so the company gets some of its legal fees back.
Key Facts
- •City Portfolio Ltd (Claimant) challenged Lancaster City Council's (Defendant) designation of a Conservation Area via judicial review.
- •Permission for judicial review was granted on all grounds.
- •The Defendant subsequently conducted a public consultation and revised the Conservation Area designation.
- •The judicial review claim became academic due to the Defendant's revised decision.
- •The Claimant sought its legal costs (£83,294.16), while the Defendant argued for no order as to costs.
Legal Principles
Overriding objective is to do justice between the parties.
CPR 44.2(2)(4); R (M) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 595
A claimant who obtains all sought relief is the successful party, entitled to costs unless there's good reason otherwise.
R (M) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 595
Success in judicial review for costs purposes doesn't necessarily mean ultimate success on the merits of the new decision.
R (Tesfay) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 415
Causation is key; the court considers the link between bringing the claim and obtaining relief.
R (Parveen) v Redbridge LBC [2020] EWCA Civ 194
A defendant's concession to avoid costs should ideally be at the pre-action stage, unless there's good reason otherwise.
R (M) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 595
The court avoids investigating who would have won at trial, focusing on whether the outcome reflects the claimant's claims.
R (Tesfay) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 415
Candour is expected from all parties in judicial review proceedings.
R (City of Wolverhampton Council) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1721 (Admin)
Outcomes
The Defendant shall pay the Claimant's costs incurred after 11 March 2022.
The Claimant achieved the substantive outcome sought in the claim (merits reconsideration with public consultation), and there was a causal link between the claim and the Defendant's decision to undertake this reconsideration. While the Defendant didn't accept unlawfulness, the consultation was causally linked to the claim, and insufficient evidence was provided to refute this.
Similar Cases
Halton Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 705 (Admin)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
MS, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council
[2024] EWHC 693 (Admin)
CHIA-HSING WANG v FLOREAT PRIVATE LIMITED
[2023] EWHC 1123 (Comm)