Lord Bingham set out guidance in respect of costs awarded by magistrates pursuant to section 64(1) of the 1980 Act, saying: ‘I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised in three propositions: 1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates’ court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them. 2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection. 3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour, and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Silber J
Citations:
[2000] EWHC Admin 444, (2000) 164 JP 485, [2001] LLR 151, (2001) 3 LGLR 8, [2000] COD 338
Links:
Statutes:
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Leeds City Council v Leeds District Magistrates and Another Admn 11-Apr-2013
The court had allowed an appeal against a decision of the appellant’s licensing sub-committee refusing a Premises Licence. The Council now appealed against the award of costs, sayin that no reasons had been given.
Held: There were no findings . .
Applied – Waveney District Council v Lowestoft (North East Suffolk) Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 25-Nov-2008
The council appealed by case stated against rejection of its claim of an asserted noise nuisance at the defendant’s paint factory. The magistrates had found that the notice had been served on the wrong (though related) company, and refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates, Costs
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.263517
