The applicants had been successful in their appeal against a refusal of planning permission. The Secretary of State had awarded himself and the applicants their costs against the Council. The Council asked the House to give guidance on the principles which should underly such awards.
Held: A losing party is not usually to pay all costs of a multiply represented opponent, but there is no overall rule. A developer would not normally be entitled to his costs unless they have some additional interest over and above their interests as developers which required their separate representation. A second set of costs might be awarded at lower appeal stages, but would be come unusual as cases progressed through levels of appeal, and the award of a third set of costs would be rare.
Lord Justice Glydewell: ‘I venture to suggest that from the authorities generally, and particularly those to which I have referred, one can deduce the following principles:
. . . (2) the decision maker ought to take into account a matter which might cause him to reach a different conclusion to that which he would reach if he did not take it into account. Such a matter is relevant to his decision making process. By the verb ‘might’ I mean where there is a real possibility that he would reach a different decision if he did take that consideration into account.
(3) If the matter is trivial or of small importance in relation to the particular decision, then it follows that if it were taken into account there would be a real possibility that it would make no difference to the decision and thus it is not a matter which the decision maker ought to take into account’.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: ‘As in all questions to do with costs, the fundamental rule is that there are no rules. Costs are always in the discretion of the court, and a practice, however widespread and longstanding, must never be allowed to harden into a rule.’
Judges:
Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Justice Glydewell
Citations:
Gazette 31-Aug-1995, Times 17-Jul-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 1176, 61 P and CR 343
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 25-May-1995
There had been an application in 1986 for planning permission for a shopping centre in Trafford. There were two public enquiries, followed, as public policy changed by further representations. The plaintiff complained that the eventual decision . .
Cited – Waverley Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1988
. .
Cited – Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another CA 24-Oct-1994
The Secretary of State was entitled to a costs order whether or not matter of principle had arisen in the course of a planning appeal. . .
Cited by:
See also – Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 25-May-1995
There had been an application in 1986 for planning permission for a shopping centre in Trafford. There were two public enquiries, followed, as public policy changed by further representations. The plaintiff complained that the eventual decision . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Planning
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78477