Torbay Borough Council v News Group Newspapers [2003] EWHC 3086 (Fam)

Case No 99HCT5246Case No FD03P02594[2003] EWHC 3086 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
(In Private)
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LLDate 15 December 2003
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUNBYIn the Matter of Angela RODDY (A Minor)In the Matter of X (A Minor)In the Matter of Y (A Minor)And in the Matter of an application byASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
Between
TORBAY BOROUGH COUNCILClaimantNEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERSDefendant
Mr Mark Warby QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for applicantAssociated Newspapers LimitedMr Lee Arnot (instructed by Legal Services) for claimant local authorityThe defendant took no part in the applicationNo hearing (application dealt with on paper)
Judgment
[1]I have now to decide the question of costs left undecided in my previous judgment: see Re Angela Roddy, Re an Application by Associated Newspapers Limited [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), paras [91], [93].[2]ANL seeks an order that the local authority pays 80 per cent of the costs it incurred from 10.30 am on 27 November 2003, the day before the hearing. Those costs amount to £7,156.The local authority is content that there should be no order for costs. The parties have agreed that, subject to my agreement, I should determine this issue without a hearing and on the basis of brief written submissions. I have no hesitation whatever in agreeing to this eminently sensible proposal. ANL has also waived any right to reasons.[3]Each party has submitted clear and helpful written submissions: those on behalf of ANL were prepared by Mr Warby QC and are dated 4 December, those on behalf of the local authority were prepared by Mr Arnot and are dated 6 December 2003.[4]I have carefully considered each party’s written submissions. I have reread the judgment I handed down on 2 December 2003, but I have considered the question of costs afresh and without attaching any weight to the provisional view expressed in para [91] of that judgment.[5]I have concluded that there should be no order for costs. In the circumstances there is no obligation on me to give any reasons and I have decided not to.[6]If this has not already been done, the local authority should lodge with the Associate for sealing a draft order following, where appropriate, the form set out at para [90] of my previous judgment.