Zapello v The Chief Constable of Sussex Police: CA 12 Nov 2010

The claimant had been arrested in the course of a neighbour dispute. He had lost his claim for damages for false imprisonment, and now complained that a later costs order had been made without his being given notice.
Held: The decision had been made without adequate notice. On attending the later hearing, the defendant should have told the judge that there had been no agreement, and nor had the judge been informed of the results of an IPCC complaint. The outcome might well have been different had it been disclosed: ‘the reason why no such rapprochement was attempted was that, while civil litigation is conducted on the Chief Constable’s behalf by outside solicitors instructed by a civil claims department, complaints are separately dealt with within the police force. This may well be so, but neither in law nor in practice is it acceptable for a public authority to fall back on the plea that its left hand does not know what its right hand is doing. We have to look at the defendant’s establishment and functions as a single entity, and it is clear that as an entity the Sussex Police treated this litigation as something to be fought and won irrespective of what the IPCC had elicited (or was eliciting in a process reminiscent of drawing teeth) as having gone on or, to an extent, gone wrong.’

Sedley, Moses, Leveson LLJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1417
Bailii
England and Wales

Police, Costs

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.430484