Cottingham Parish Council v Secretary of State for Local Government & Communities

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: I am against you, Mr Langham. You must pay the Secretary of State's costs. What about today?

MISS HOLLEY: My Lord, we do have a schedule. Today's schedule is not finalised because we were not sure what the risk would be but we do claim for the costs of today because it ought to have been possibly to agree this matter last week. We did not need to come along. It has taken your Lordship's time unnecessarily.

MR LANGHAM: The suggestion made by those instructing me would have avoided the need for today's hearing, but if --

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: I have taken the view that you should have to pay costs in the ordinary way. As I say, I interpret that letter in a different way than you. I think it is the way anyone would have interpreted it.

MR LANGHAM: Could I just make sure there is nothing more I should say?

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: I would like to sort out the exact amount. No more time should be spent on this case.

MR LANGHAM: We have not seen the schedule, my Lord. This schedule --

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: No, no, of course. Shall we wait a moment? Shall we wait until we hear Miss Hanif?

MISS HOLLEY: It is very imminent. I am sorry to hold the court up. I will round down my hours and I won't charge any more than that.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Show it to Mr Langham.

MR LANGHAM: My Lord, I am grateful for the instructions. As far as I can make out, the schedule represents the schedule that accompanied the -- we were commenting on in our letter of 20 February plus an allowance for today.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes.

MR LANGHAM: I am not taking any point about the allowance for today. What that means is that the comments in our letter of 20 February as I understand -- as I understand the items in the schedule are the same applied to the schedule which your Lordship has.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Tell me then.

MR LANGHAM: Yes, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: There is a double counting, you say, in terms of hours, for two of the lawyers. Is that what you are saying?

MR LANGHAM: That is right, my Lord. We don't understand how 19.3 hours could have been spent on documents in this case by the Secretary of State and we don't see why we should be making any contribution to the Secretary of State's costs of dealing with the council's application -- unsuccessful application to strike out bits of our claim.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Where is that?

MR LANGHAM: That is the -- it's the fourth paragraph of the first page. The one that starts "we are also concerned".

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Sorry, where is it in the schedule? It is somewhere in the schedule? Do we know it is in the schedule? While you are trying to find out about that, Miss Holley, tell me about 19.3 hours on documents.

MISS HOLLEY: That covers advice given to the client and liaising with PINS, Panel of Inspectors, and also getting the statutory declarations from the other parties and going through the PINs file.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: For the purposes of the shorthand writer that was a gesture indicating a file of a foot high. What is the other point? The strike-out.

MISS HOLLEY: They have mentioned the strike out. That is sadly not right. That is in relation to advice I gave on the matter. It is nothing to do with the strike out.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Is the strike out reflected here at all?

MISS HOLLEY: No, I think that may be a matter for the other party, as between the council and claimant.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: I can understand how dealing with a file a foot high might take 15 hours, but may not take 19.

MISS HOLLEY: I understand it is a broad brush approach.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: So I will reduce it to 15 hours, but otherwise that is what the Secretary of State gets.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: I take the view that they are entitled to some costs. It seems to me that this is one of the exceptional cases under Bolton. This is, in a way, a separate issue where they had to be here. I also take the view, however, that this case should never have come to this court today. So, Miss Hanif, justify some of this. You said £2,000 at one stage and now we are up to £5211.

MISS HANIF: My Lord, the sum of £2,000 was a rough and ready method to get rid of the matter.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: So justify anything over £2,000.

MISS HANIF: That takes into account perusal of all the documents, obviously instructions had to be taken from the client in terms of when the letters were posted, how they were posted, et cetera. A witness statement was taken from Angela Ross. As I understand it, whilst that would have formed part of the strike-out application, notwithstanding that it was used as part of the substantive hearing because it did go to the crucial issue as to when the letter was sent out and how it was sent out, so in my submission that should properly go into this cost schedule because it does respond to the claimant's case. My Lord, there have been numerous other issues such as internal e-mails, research tasks and clearly the council had to take a view at that stage as to the merits of the matter. That, in effect, is a summary of the tasks that have been undertaken in this statement of costs.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Mr Langham.

MISS HANIF: My Lord, I would say that by analogy the Secretary of State has taken a similar amount of time in respect of this case and, my Lord, I would say that that does give some sort of yardstick that the amount of time taken by the council is no in way excessive given the main allegation was against the council as it were.

MR LANGHAM: The witness statement of Angela Ross was in the evidence which supported the strike-out application. That was an application whose costs were dealt with in the order disposing of those proceedings. In my submission there can't be a question of revisiting that or somehow extracting them.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes.

MR LANGHAM: And I am having some difficulty seeing where all the ... I am going to assume that the mathematics is correct.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: There is 11 hours on documents. So in other words, the file was only 6 inches in your case rather than a foot.

MR LANGHAM: All I can say, my Lord, is, if one excludes the application, which did involve -- I can understand it involved a certain amount of effort -- it is very difficult to see what that leaves in terms of work generating legitimate claims for costs in this case. I would suggest it can't possibly be in the order of £5,000.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Well, put a figure on it.

MR LANGHAM: £1,000, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Well, it was £2,000 at one point. You could have just walked away. You have to start with £2,000 at least.

MR LANGHAM: £2,000 then, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Miss Hanif, if you can come back to the point. You didn't have to do exactly what the Secretary of State did. You are in a slightly different -- you are in a different position.

MISS HANIF: My Lord, ordinarily that would be entirely the case, but, in a sense, this case is unusual because the central case was against the council as it were. Obviously the legal framework is very different. The touchstone of the claimant's case was solely against the council and so to that extent it is unusual and it does explain why on the facts of this case this amount of time was necessary.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: These are very difficult judgments, in the sense that it is a trade-off between making the decision and coming to an accurate estimate, but it seems to me that costs should be assessed as £3,250.

MR LANGHAM: My Lord.

MISS HANIF: My Lord, I am grateful.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Anything more? Do I make the order about withdrawal?

MR LANGHAM: Your Lordship would better.

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: I do that. Anything more? No. Thank you.