[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Dickinson & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue And Customs [2017] EWHC 1943 (Admin) (27 July 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/1943.html Cite as: [2017] EWHC 1943 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
[2017] EWHC 1705 (Admin)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		27/07/2017

Charles J:

1. I handed down judgment without attendance on 7 July 2017, [2017] EWHC 1705 (Admin), dismissing the claim.
2. Three issues remain outstanding:

(i) Permission to appeal.

(ii) Continuation of interim relief.

(iii) Costs.

Permission to appeal

3. The Claimants seek permission to appeal. I refuse that application. In my view this is a case in which the application should be made to the Court of Appeal because of the nature of the grounds advanced, and the point that that Court can conveniently deal with issues relating to when that application should be dealt with by reference to the delivery of its judgment in the appeals in Walapu and Vital Nut and only it can deal with the expedition of the hearing if permission is granted.

Continuation of interim relief

4. The Revenue does not oppose the continuation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of the order made on 25 June 2015 until the determination of any application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal or, should permission be granted, until determination of the appeal by the Court of Appeal (or otherwise). The liberty to apply will enable the parties to apply to vary the period of that order if, for example, no in time application for permission to appeal is made, or to vary other provisions of it (e.g. the provision of evidence of hardship). I will make that order.
5. I record that in agreeing to it the Revenue has expressly reserved its right to apply to the Court in relation to the cogency of the evidence of hardship which the Claimants have submitted.

Costs

6. I record that I was surprised when the first draft order sent to me provided for the Claimants to pay the Revenue's costs because I was expecting the arguments on costs that are now being advanced.
7. First, I conclude and record that all existing orders for costs should stand and so my order relates to the balance of the costs.
8. The Claimants seek a result that the parties bear their own costs. In my view that is the right result notwithstanding that the Revenue won the case. So, with the qualification mentioned in paragraph 7 hereof, I will make no order as to costs. My reasons for doing this are:

(i) the Revenue lost on its main argument which had dictated its approach in giving the APNs and during the proceedings,

(ii) that approach effectively ignored basic principles of good administration (see paragraph 165 of the judgment) and so fell significantly below the standards the public and so taxpayers are entitled to expect,

(iii) the long delays identified in the judgment were no fault of the Claimants,

(iv) the Revenue's explanation in evidence for the long delays and the change in its position needed de-coding and lacked clarity and appropriate focus (see paragraphs 122 to 142 of the judgment) and so fell significantly below the standards the Court and the parties to litigation are entitled to expect from the Revenue, and

(v) I found points (ii) and (iv) particularly troubling and it seems to me that it is appropriate for them to be reflected in a costs award in the hope that this will encourage the Revenue to consider them at appropriate legal and administrative levels and to take appropriate steps to avoid them being repeated.