![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Emezie v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 733 (26 June 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/733.html Cite as: [2013] EWCA Civ 733, [2013] 5 Costs LR 685 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
OF
APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF
JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
MR JUSTICE MOSTYN
![]() ![]() Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
and
SIR STANLEY BURNTON
____________________
![]() ![]() |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
![]() ![]() |
Respondent |
____________________
of
the Handed Down Judgment
of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Jonathan Hall (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent
____________________
OF
JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Sir Stanley Burnton :
"60. …, in Administrative Court cases, just as in other civil litigation, particularly where a claim has been settled, there is, in my view, a sharp difference between (i) a case where a claimant has been wholly successful whether following a contested hearing or pursuant to a settlement, and (ii) a case where he has only succeeded in part following a contested hearing, or pursuant to a settlement, and (iii) a case where there has been some compromise which does not actually reflect the claimant's claims. While in every case, the allocationof
costs will depend on the specific facts, there are some points which can be made about these different types
of
case.
61. In case (i), it is hard to see why the claimant should not recover all his costs, unless there is some good reason to the contrary. Whether pursuant to judgment following a contested hearing, or by virtueof
a settlement, the claimant can, at least absent special circumstances, say that he has been vindicated, and, as the successful party, that he should recover his costs. In the latter case, the defendants can no doubt say that they were realistic in settling, and should not be penalised in costs, but the answer to that point is that the defendants should, on that basis, have settled before the proceedings were issued: that is one
of
the main points
of
the pre-action protocols. Ultimately, it seems to me that Bahta was decided on this basis."
Lord Justice Elias: