JE v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 192

Case No C5/2013/1417[2014] EWCA Civ 192
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION JUDGE
IA084172012
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 25 th February 2014
Before
LORD JUSTICE LAWSLORD JUSTICE JACKSONLADY JUSTICE BLACK
Between
JE (JAMAICA)AppellantTHE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTRespondent
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Adam Tear (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for AppellantMr Paul Joseph (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for RespondentHearing Hearing date: 25 th February 2014
Judgment
[1]The applicant, who is appealing to the Court of Appeal against an order of the Upper Tribunal, seeks an order under rule 52.9A of the Civil Procedure Rules. The principal issue in this application is whether the court has power to make the order sought.[2]The order which the applicant seeks is:
“a. That the Appellant’s reasonable incurred disbursements (Court Fees) be paid by the Respondent in any event; b. That the Respondent be prevented from recovery of costs, save for misconduct, against the Appellant in any event; and c. That if the Appellant is successful in her appeal in full or part the usual costs rules apply.”
[3]The application was launched on 18th February 2014. The skeleton argument of the Secretary of State, the respondent, was served on 20th February. The applicant’s skeleton argument was served on 24th February. The appeal is listed for hearing today, 25th February.[4]Although applications under rule 52.9A are normally dealt with in writing, that is not practicable given the chronology of events stated above. Rule 52.9A provides: “Orders to limit the recoverable costs of an appeal 52.9A(1) In any proceedings in which costs recovery is normally limited or excluded at first instance, an appeal court may make an order that the recoverable costs of an appeal will be limited to the extent which the court specifies.(2) In making such an order the court will have regard to – (a) the means of both parties; (b) all the circumstances of the case; and (c) the need to facilitate access to justice.(3) If the appeal raises an issue of principle or practice upon which substantial sums may turn, it may not be appropriate to make an order under paragraph (1).(4) An application for such an order must be made as soon as practicable and will be determined without a hearing unless the court orders otherwise.”http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part52 - Back-to-top#Back-to-top (a) the means of both parties; (b) all the circumstances of the case; and (c) the need to facilitate access to justice.[5]Mr Tear for the appellant submits that this rule empowers the court to make a one-way costs shifting order of the kind set out in his application notice. He places particular reliance on the last seven words of rule 52.9A (1).[6]In my view this application, although attractively presented, is based upon a misconception which needs to be exposed before any similar applications are made to this court.[7]Rule 52.9A is part of a package of rules which were introduced on 1st April 2013 in order to implement recommendations made in the Review of the Civil Litigation Costs Final Report (January 2010). The specific mischief against which that rule is directed is set out on pages 340-341 of that report.[8]Rule 52.9A (1) refers to “the recoverable costs of an appeal”. That phrase means the costs recoverable by the winning party, whoever the winner may turn out to be. The rule deals with appeals coming up from a “no costs” or a “low costs” jurisdiction. It enables the appeal court to put in place a similar regime to that which applied in the court or tribunal below. The rule does not contemplate an order in favour of just one party, win or lose.[9]Three further considerations support the interpretation set out in the previous paragraph. First, the opening lines of rule 52.9A (1) set the context. The rule is specifically concerned with appeals from jurisdictions in which all parties are subject to the same restrictions upon recoverable costs. Secondly, as Laws LJ pointed out in argument this morning, the three considerations set out in paragraph (2) of the rule are relevant to considering whether or not to maintain a “no costs” or “low costs” regime upon appeal. Thirdly, there are separate rules which provide for qualified one-way costs shifting in specified cases. In my view rule 52.9A is not concerned with one-way costs shifting.[10]If an appeal is brought from a “no costs or “low costs” jurisdiction, both parties should give prompt consideration to whether they(a) want and(b) would qualify for such an order. Very often they will not want such an order, because they desire to recover their costs if they win. So be it.[11]It is important that any application for an order under rule 52.9A is made at an early stage, so that both parties know the costs regime under which they are proceeding. Rule 52.9A (4) requires the application to be made “as soon as practicable”. That does not mean immediately. It envisages that both parties will require a reasonable time in which to consider their position.[12]If the appellant seeks an order under rule 52.9A, it may be convenient and economic to include such an application in the appellant’s notice, but the rule does not require that. Mr Paul Joseph for the Secretary of State points out that both parties may need time to consider to their position once they know whether permission to appeal has been granted and upon what grounds. He suggests that a sensible cut-off point would be two weeks after the grant of permission has been notified to the respondent. That is the date by which the respondent must serve the respondent’s notice if any. I can see force in that submission, but it is not necessary to decide that question in the present case. Furthermore it would be undesirable to attempt to cater for all the factual circumstances which may arise. Anyway it is not the function of this court to re-write the rule.[13]Once made the application can then be dealt with in writing at modest cost, unless the court otherwise orders. Any challenges to the court’s decision will not be entertained unless the court has made a clear error of principle.[14]In the present case the applicant has applied far too late for an order which the court has no power to make. I express the hope that no such application will ever be made again on the eve of an appeal.[15]It would be helpful if the literature provided by HMCTS to appellants and respondents drew attention to the court’s power under rule 52.9A and the need to make any application under that rule as soon as practicable. In the meantime I hope that appellants and respondents will take note of this judgment.[16]If my Lord and my Lady agree, this application is dismissed.[17]I agree.[18]I also agree. [The hearing then proceeded. JE succeeded in her appeal.]

Cited in 5 later judgments