ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr Justice Collins)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Tuesday, 17 June 2003
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE WARD
and
LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
--------------------
HUGH STEPHEN HAYCOCKS
Appellant
-v-
THE LAW SOCIETY
Respondent
----------------------
Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7404 1400 Fax: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
---------------------
The Appellant, Mr Hugh Haycocks, appeared in person.
Mr Derrick Dale (instructed by Messrs Wright Son & Pepper) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
-----------------------
RULING ON COSTS
(As Approved by the Court)
©Crown Copyright
LORD JUSTICE WARD:
1. This case has taken a slightly unusual turn. The ordinary rule is that costs follow the event. The event, though clouded by the Law Society's very helpful and proper concession, is in effect a victory for Mr Haycocks in the sense that, without his having brought these proceedings, the penalty imposed upon him would have stood unchallenged. The result of his issuing proceedings is that he has another opportunity to challenge that award.
2. On the other hand, the new rules under Part 44 give the court a wide discretion to depart from costs following the event as the general rule and, among other things, one is able to have regard to the conduct of the parties and the extent to which they have been successful on all issues. Conduct includes conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings and the manner in which the parties have pursued their allegations and their issues.
3. So far as the Law Society are concerned, as I have indicated, they have behaved impeccably in bowing to the indication of the court that we were anxious about the point on which Mr Haycocks has eventually succeeded. By contrast, he has done absolutely nothing to advance his case. His conduct before the disciplinary committee was appalling. He ignored their letters. He failed to respond. He brought those proceeding largely upon his own head and he has scant cause to complain. He was late both in bringing judicial review and, technically, even in coming to this Court as well. He did not accept olive branches held out by the Law Society and he lost the one issue, though he may have won on the other.
4. We are conscious that we indicated our provisional view of no order for costs. Mr Dale has put up a powerful argument why that should be the right order. But, by the narrowest of margins, we are persuaded that Mr Haycocks had to come to get some relief and that that entitles him to some very modest part of his costs.
5. Doing the best we can, and trying to make an order which is just and fair in all the circumstances, we shall award Mr Haycocks one quarter of his costs here and below, including the costs of today, those costs to be assessed if not agreed.
Order: appellant to have one quarter of his costs here and below, including the costs of today, to be assessed if not agreed.