[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> Cheema & Ors v Nottingham and Newark Magistrates' Court & Anor [2013] EWHC 4022 (Admin) (17 December 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/4022.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 4022 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		17/12/2013

Lord Justice Treacy:

1. When judgment was handed down in this claim, we invited short submissions on costs. These have now been received.
2. In summary the Second Defendant has submitted that there be no order for costs on the grounds that the Claimants were not wholly successful in their claim, that the Second Defendant had made significant concessions in its Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) and that the Claimants had failed to follow the pre-action protocol. Adverse observations are made on the way the Claimants conducted the claim in making what are said to have been inappropriate allegations against the Second Defendant.
3. The Claimants submit that as the successful party they should be entitled to a full order for costs. They rebut the complaint of the failure to follow the protocol as being irrelevant in circumstances where the claim was ultimately contested beyond the concession made in the AOS. They dispute that they made allegations which were either inappropriate or stopped the parties making proper progress towards resolving the issues.
4. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. We are mindful of the principles applicable to the award of costs set out in CPR 44, in particular that in the exercise of our discretion, we should have regard to the conduct of all the parties and whether a party has succeeded on part of his claim, even if he has not been wholly successful.
5. We accept the submissions of the Claimants that this is not the occasion in the context of this claim to rule upon the validity of the allegations complained of by the Second Defendant. They were not a prominent feature of the submissions argued before the court. Their detailed consideration is best reserved for the damages hearing. We are also mindful that the Second Defendant's concessions were only ever limited to the extent set out in the AOS and that the grant of permission was contested.
6. Where we depart from the Claimants' submissions is that we do not consider that a full order for costs in their favour would be appropriate. Although they obtained the substance of the relief they sought, they did not make out the entirety of the grounds which were argued before us. On ground one, their success was limited to the final wording of the description of the articles. Of the three grounds which went to the validity of the warrant, they failed completely on one and succeeded on one only on a technicality. As regards the ground upon which they succeeded substantively (the failure to justify the search of two of the addresses) we have sympathy with the submission of the Second Defendant that this was hardly spelt out in the very general way in which the ground was originally pleaded.
7. In all the circumstances we consider the appropriate order for costs is one in which the Second Defendant should pay the Claimants fifty percent of their costs.
8. We accordingly order that the Second Defendant should pay the Claimants fifty percent of the Claimants' costs to be subject to a detailed assessment, if not agreed.

Mr Justice King:

9. I agree.