Skip to Main Content

Find Case LawBeta

Judgments and decisions from 2001 onwards

B v London Borough of Hackney

[2009] EWHC 765 (Admin)

CO/4879/2008
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 765 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Date: Monday, 23 March 2008

B e f o r e:

MR C.M.G. OCKELTON

(Sitting as a Deputy Judge)

Between:

B

Claimant

v

LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY

Defendant

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

WordWave International Limited

A Merrill Communications Company

190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr Z Nabi (instructed by Messrs Steel and Shamash, London SE1) appeared on behalf of the Claimant

Mr J Price (instructed by in-house solicitors at the London Borough of Hackney) appeared on behalf of the Defendant

J U D G M E N T

1.

THE DEPUTY JUDGE: These proceedings between B and the London Borough of Hackney have been settled in every respect except for costs. Today, Mr Nabi on behalf of B applies for his costs on an indemnity basis. Mr Price on behalf of the local authority accepts that it is liable for the claimant's costs, but on a standard basis only.

2.

The substance of Mr Nabi's claim is that the local authority have acted unreasonably in relation to this litigation, failing, he says, to deal properly with correspondence asking for acceptance that they were liable in principle and failing to deal in other respects with the costs claimed. It is however accepted on both sides that as late as Friday the parties were prepared to settle costs on a standard basis if it could be done then and on the basis that attendance today would not be necessary.

3.

The attendance at court today has raised the costs, but I am not persuaded that there is anything in this claim which should cause an order to be made on an indemnity basis. I therefore order the defendant to pay the claimant's costs on a standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.

4.

MR NABI: My Lord, there are two further matters. First, the claimant seeks permission to withdraw the claim for judicial review, it having become academic.

5.

THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Yes.

6.

MR NABI: Secondly, detailed assessment of the claimant's publicly funded costs.

7.

THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Yes, you may have that too.

8.

MR NABI: I am grateful. Thank you.

B v London Borough of Hackney

[2009] EWHC 765 (Admin)

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (75.0 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download this judgment as XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.