Background

The claimant had sought judicial review of decisions taken by the defendant, the London Borough of Camden, that he did not qualify for the allocation of housing under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996.

He was given permission to proceed with his application for judicial review on one ground at an oral hearing.

Judgment was reserved after the substantive hearing and a draft was subsequently circulated to the parties. The claim was dismissed.

The defendant had served a costs schedule prior to the substantive hearing but no submissions were made on costs by the claimant following judgment hand down. The judge awarded the defendant its costs as claimed, in the sum of £11,614.20.

The claimant applied to set aside that order which was refused on the papers. The claimant sought an oral reconsideration of that decision.

The test

Rule 3.3(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that where the court makes an order of its own initiative without hearing the parties or giving them an opportunity to make representations a party affected by the order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed.

Mostyn J noted that there appeared to be no authority on the correct test under CPR r.3.3(5). He concluded that the right approach was for the court to give due weight to the decision of the judge who dealt with the matter without a hearing and to identify a good reason for disagreeing with his or her decision.

The issue

The issue for the court was whether the solicitor’s hourly rate as claimed breached the indemnity principle.

The defendant claimed £317 per hour in accordance with the suggested rates from the Supreme Court costs office. However, the defendant had obtained information from a FOI request and discovered that the maximum hourly rate paid to an in-house lawyer of the London Borough of Camden was £41.75.

The judgment

The conventional method appropriate to taxing the bill of a solicitor in private practice is also appropriate for the bill of an in-house solicitor in all but special cases where it is reasonably plain that that method will infringe the indemnity principle: Re Eastwood (deceased) [1975] Ch, 112; Cole v British Telecoms PLC [2002] Costs LR, 310.

This was not a special case allowing an exception to the general rule. The £317 claimed encompassed more than just the payroll costs. It extended to a contribution to the infrastructural costs of the borough itself including the costs of maintaining equipment, utilities, other office costs and the capital costs of the building.

The application was dismissed. The defendant’s costs of the hearing were not allowed as it had not filed Form N260 in accordance with PD44.

Summary by Alice Richardson, barrister, Trinity Chambers.

For the judgment, click here.