Judicial Review Upheld in Exolum Pipeline System Ltd Case: Analysis of Crown Court Costs Order and Public Law Error

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2811 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

This article provides an analysis of the case law regarding Exolum Pipeline System Ltd’s judicial review proceedings against the Crown Court at Great Grimsby (referred to as “the claimant” and “the defendant” respectively). The case addresses the supervisory jurisdiction of the Administrative Court concerning a costs order made at the conclusion of an abandoned Crown Court trial, and the application of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (Regulation 3). The judgment was delivered by FORDHAM J, and the detailed analysis elucidates the legal principles applied, linking them directly to the case summary.

Key Facts

Exolum Pipeline System Ltd challenged the cost order made by a Crown Court judge, arguing that the order involved a public law error. The administrative court assessed whether the claim fell within its supervisory jurisdiction and whether a material public law error existed in the Crown Court’s decision-making process.

The case rested on Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 and the approach to the ‘Causation Precondition’—whether the costs incurred by the prosecution were a direct result of an ‘improper or unnecessary act or omission’ by Exolum. Judge FORDHAM J laid out the nuanced Components of Regulation 3 and grappled with the concept of ‘jurisdiction,’ which featured prominently in the case, along with concepts of ‘public law error’ and ‘material error.‘

The core legal principles addressed include:

  1. Supervisory Jurisdiction: The Administrative Court’s power to review decisions of public authorities and ‘inferior courts’ of limited jurisdiction to ensure accountability and adherence to the rule of law.

  2. Statutory Preconditions: The necessity for a court to be satisfied with prerequisite conditions before exercising a discretionary power, and the inherent right of parties to challenge judicial determinations on grounds of unlawfulness, unreasonableness, and procedural unfairness.

  3. Public Law Error: Categories of errors that can vitiate a decision, including failure to ask legally required questions, misdirecting in law, and relying on irrelevant considerations.

  4. ‘Matters Relating to Trial on Indictment’: The distinction in jurisdiction when it comes to matters relating to trial on indictment under s.29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and how they interplay with judicial review rights.

  5. Causation under Regulation 3: A focus on the requirement that costs must have been incurred “as a result of” an act or omission, meaning there must be a direct causal link between the act or omission and the costs incurred.

Outcomes

The court concluded that the Crown Court did not make a material public law error regarding the Causation Precondition when making the costs order pursuant to Regulation 3. It was found that the Judge adequately identified and addressed the Causation Precondition and that the costs had been indeed incurred “as a result of” Exolum’s failure to address the OSA Issue before the trial.

FORDHAM J dismissed the claim and held that no error of law tainted the Judge’s reasoning or decision-making. Consequently, Exolum was ordered to pay the agreed upon costs of the proceedings.

Conclusion

In this complex examination of judicial review jurisdiction and the application of statutory preconditions to costs orders, FORDHAM J’s judgment affirms the administrative court’s robust role in overseeing other courts’ adherence to legal preconditions, while showcasing prudent restraint in respecting the procedural discretion of trial judges. The judgment serves as yet another reinforcement of the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain between statutory mandates and the overarching principles of fairness and justice which form the bedrock of the rule of law.