[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd [2001] EWHC Admin 803 (19th October, 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/803.html Cite as: [2001] EWHC Admin 803

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BRADFORD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL v. YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD. [2001] EWHC Admin 803 (19th October, 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		19th October 2001

Lord Justice Brooke : This is the judgment of the court.

1. We ended our judgment in this case by saying that we considered that the appropriate order was to direct that the appeal should be dismissed with costs (see [2001] EWHC Admin 687 at [35]). Because we had been told that Mr Straker QC wished to make submissions on his clients’ behalf in relation to costs, we directed that our order should not be drawn up until after we had had the opportunity to consider those submissions. Although the respondents have now questioned whether his submissions were filed within the time permitted, we have not considered it necessary to inquire into that matter. We would have extended time for this purpose if necessary.

2. We have now received written submissions from both parties. Mr Straker argues that although his clients failed on their appeal we should nevertheless make no order as to costs. He relies heavily in this regard on the recent decision of this court in Bradford MDC v Booth 164 JPR 485. In that case the council had appealed to this court by way of case stated against a decision made by justices to award costs against it in favour of the owner of a private car hire business who had appealed successfully against the council’s refusal to renew his private hire operator’s licence.

3. In his judgment, with which Silber J agreed, Lord Bingham CJ was concerned only with the proper approach to the award of costs where a complainant had successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in the exercise of its public duty. In those circumstances he said at p 491 that 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 was 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 was successfully challenged.

4. Mr Straker invited us to extend this principle to the present case, because his clients were required by statute to inspect their area for statutory nuisances, and were required to issue an abatement notice if satisfied that a statutory nuisance existed (see Environmental Protection Act 1990 ss 79(1) and 80(1)). He added that the answer to the first and important question on this appeal was favourable for the council and of value in their continuing dealings with Yorkshire, and that the judgment was of general assistance.

5. In the present case the deputy district judge made no award of costs in favour of Yorkshire in relation to the hearing in his court, even though he allowed their appeal against the abatement notice. Yorkshire did not and do not seek an order reversing that decision. Mr Barrett maintains, however, that the logic of the decision in Bradford v Booth should not be applied to these appellate proceedings. Bradford chose to appeal the deputy district judge’s decision and lost, and he submits that there is no reason why an order for costs should not follow the event of the appeal. Both sides conducted the proceedings both here and below in a sensible matter, and the clarification of the position which emerged from this court admitting new material on the appeal (none of which was new to Bradford) should not result in any different costs order from the order we were minded to make.

6. We accept Mr Barrett’s submissions. If Bradford is able to obtain financial assistance from some other source to help them with the costs they will have incurred in clarifying a rather obscure corner of the law which is of general contemporary importance, that is a matter for them. As between the parties to this appeal, they appealed and lost, and they should pay Yorkshire’s costs of the appeal. The order we mentioned in paragraph 35 of our judgment can therefore now be drawn up.

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: This is another judgment in the Divisional Court. It is a judgment on costs ancillary to a judgment this court gave recently. Mr Justice Newman is not able to be here and we have excused the parties' attendance. We have made copies of our judgment available to the parties.

For the reasons given in the short judgment of the court, the order that we were minded to make when we gave judgment originally can now be drawn up: that Bradford should pay Yorkshire's costs of the appeal.

---------------------