Cotham School v Bristol City Council & Anor (Re Consequential Matters) [2025] EWHC 1804 (Ch) (15 July 2025)

Cotham School v Bristol City Council & Anor (Re Consequential Matters) [2025] EWHC 1804 (Ch) (15 July 2025)

Costs were apportioned 10% to Bristol City Council and 90% to Ms Welham based on their respective roles and efforts in the litigation. No order as to costs was made for the withdrawn contempt application due to lack of clear success. Permission to appeal was refused as no real prospect of success or compelling reason was demonstrated on any ground.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1804 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Cotham School; First Defendant: Bristol City Council; Second Defendant: Katharine Welham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Property Trusts and Probate / Post Judgment Consequential Matters
Outcome
Costs apportioned; no order as to contempt application costs; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Permission to Appeal, Town and Village Greens, Statutory Incompatibility, Use as of Right, Contempt of Court
Property Law Civil Procedure Costs Permission to Appeal Town and Village Greens Statutory Incompatibility Use as of Right Contempt of Court

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cotham School

Claimant

Bristol City Council

First Defendant

Katharine Welham

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Property Trusts and Probate / Post Judgment Consequential Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Apportionment of costs between defendants
  2. 2 Costs of withdrawn contempt application
  3. 3 Permission to appeal on grounds of statutory incompatibility, use as of right, interruption of use, unlawful use

Ratio Decidendi

Costs were apportioned 10% to Bristol City Council and 90% to Ms Welham based on their respective roles and efforts in the litigation. No order as to costs was made for the withdrawn contempt application due to lack of clear success. Permission to appeal was refused as no real prospect of success or compelling reason was demonstrated on any ground.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned; no order as to contempt application costs; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • BCC to pay 10% of Cotham's costs, capped at £20,000.
  • Ms Welham to pay 90% of Cotham's costs, subject to detailed assessment.