R (Platform & Ors) v HM Treasury [2010] EWCA Civ 352
[1]I have forced on myself the actual appeal in relation to costs, and as ever these points are not easy, and it is often so in relation to costs. But what one must remember is that the judge has heard the case over a period, he has got himself into the detail of the disputes, and at the end of the day he is exercising his discretion on costs, and it takes a great deal for this court to interfere with that exercise of discretion. When I granted permission, it was because it seemed to me that it was arguable that what he was saying in those last sentences on page 52 was that, broadly, the claimants should have their costs for a period up to 7 August, and the defendants should have their costs thereafter; and that then could not produce an answer which was for the defendant to be paying any sum of costs.[2]But on reflection, it seems to me it is not fair to say that the judge is saying that costs should be paid for the period of 7 August; in other words, he is saying that costs will be paid for the second period so far as the defendants are concerned. He is simply saying that there is merit in the position. What he has to do at that stage is to ask himself whether it is appropriate that an order for costs should be made in the defendant’s favour. And it seems to me that in one sense the choice he had at that stage was between nought and then saying, no, I think some costs should be paid. And he came down at a figure of £10,000.[3]So far as I am concerned in the Court of Appeal, again it seems to me that the question is between nought and £10,000; but I, for my part, cannot say that the judge was wrong, or clearly wrong to award £10,000.[4]So in those circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.Order
Appeal dismissed.