Burkett, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham [2004] EWCA Civ 1342 (15 October 2004)

Burkett, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham [2004] EWCA Civ 1342 (15 October 2004)

The court held that the judge possessed discretionary powers to order set-off of costs between the parties, even where one party is legally aided, and that the statutory regime does not prevent such set-off. The costs order is made in favour of the party, not the Legal Services Commission, and lack of mutuality does not bar set-off in the context of costs orders. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1342
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sonia Burkett; Defendant/respondent: London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; Intervener: Legal Services Commission; Intervener: Law Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Legal Aid, Set Off, Judicial Review, Planning Permission
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Environmental Law Costs Legal Aid Set Off Judicial Review Planning Permission

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 25
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonia Burkett

Claimant/appellant

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Defendant/respondent

Legal Services Commission

Intervener

Law Society

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs order against a legally aided party can be set off against costs owed to that party
  2. 2 Whether the new statutory regime under the Access to Justice Act 1999 alters the set-off principles
  3. 3 Whether the beneficiary of a costs order is the Legal Services Commission or the assisted party

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the judge possessed discretionary powers to order set-off of costs between the parties, even where one party is legally aided, and that the statutory regime does not prevent such set-off. The costs order is made in favour of the party, not the Legal Services Commission, and lack of mutuality does not bar set-off in the context of costs orders. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondents' costs of appeal if not agreed
  • Application for permission to appeal to House of Lords refused