Costs in standards cases

Claire Booth analyses a High Court ruling on costs after a standards case involving a town council and one of its members.

The decision in Taylor v Honiton Town Council [2017] EWHC 101 (Admin) (Admin Ct) concerned an application for costs following on from the substantive judicial review decision in December 2016 regarding the town council's decision to impose sanctions on T for breaching its Code of Conduct.

The town council told T's solicitors on 26 February 2016 that the sanctions decision was revoked and T was told personally on 1 March that all sanctions currently imposed on him had been withdrawn; nevertheless, T issued his application for judicial review and the proceedings were served on 2 March. O

On 19 March the town council wrote to T repeating its decision not to re-impose all the sanctions, and limiting any sanctions for his misconduct to censure. It offered to pay T's costs and proposed that the proceedings be withdrawn. T replied that he proposed to continue his claim as he considered that the revocation of the sanctions was not lawful and contended that he should be free of all sanctions in respect of the breach of the Code, including censure. The court quashed the town council's decision to impose sanctions but dismissed the rest of T's claim. The court was then asked to determine  costs.

The court held that this was a case where the interests of justice required a departure, on conduct grounds, from the general rule that the unsuccessful party pay the successful party's costs. It was an important function of the costs jurisdiction that it operated as an incentive to parties to resolve disputes where possible. Here, very substantial costs had been incurred on both sides which need never have happened. T had had his chance to settle on terms that his costs would be paid until the date of the settlement if it had occurred. He had rejected that offer, and it was clear that he was still really trying to secure a result which meant that he should not have been sanctioned at all as a result of his misconduct, which he had failed to achieve. He seems to have thought that, having been subjected to unlawful sanctions between December 2015 and their withdrawal on 19 January 2016 and their repeated revocation over the months which followed, he could conduct the proceedings as he wished and recover all his costs however unmeritorious some of the contentions were. In this respect he was wrong. The judge found that the proceedings were issued too quickly because of a fear of a time limit. The dispute was substantially resolved by 26 February 2016 and the loose ends could and should have been agreed after that without the need for any proceedings. T's conduct  had not been characterised by a genuine attempt to compromise the proceedings on the basis of the law as properly understood. The town council's letter of 19 March 2016 was a key document – it resolved any possible doubt and from that point on T's continuation and conduct of these proceedings was unreasonable.

The court therefore ordered that the town council pay T's costs incurred up to and including 19 March 2016, and that T pay the town council's costs incurred on and after 20 March 2016. The judge commented that this might be thought generous but it appeared to him to achieve broad justice.

Claire Booth is an Associate Professional Support Lawyer at Bevan Brittan. She can be contacted on 0370 194 1705 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..