Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Costs awarded to successful applicant in judicial review concerning destruction of horse
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, following two previously delivered judgments in judicial review proceedings concerning the destruction of a horse by a local authority, awards the applicant the legal costs of the proceedings on the grounds that: (a) although the applicant had not succeeded on every issue, he had succeeded on the two principal issues in the proceedings; (b) neither of the two issues in respect of which the applicant was said to have been unsuccessful took up much court time or contributed in any appreciable way to additional costs; (c) the applicant did not act unreasonably in refusing the respondent's offer of compensation as it was not an offer to satisfy the whole or part of the Applicant’s claim, and it did not accept responsibility for the legal costs to date; and (d) the damages actually awarded exceeded the sum offered.
Costs of legal proceedings - judicial review - Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 - two previous reserved judgments in the proceedings - the first judgment addressed the question of whether the conduct of the respondent Council in destroying a horse owned by the applicant was unlawful - the second judgment addressed the question of whether the unlawful conduct of the local authority sounded in damages - the applicant was successful in relation to both judgments - whether it was appropriate to make an order apportioning the costs as between particular issues that arose in the case - whether the applicant was successful on all issues in the proceedings - whether a letter written in advance of the hearing on damages by the Respondent Council which offered to pay a sum by way of damages to the Applicant, which was less than that awarded, meant that there should be no order as to costs - respondent Council directed to pay the costs of the proceedings - a stay on execution put on the order pending an appeal.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
