Cottingham Parish Council v Secretary of State for Local Government & Communities
The court determined that the Secretary of State and Corby Borough Council were entitled to costs, but reduced the hours claimed for document review and assessed Corby Borough Council's costs at £3,250, finding the case exceptional under Bolton but noting the hearing was unnecessary.
- Parties
- Claimant: Cottingham Parish Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities; Third Defendant: Corby Borough Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Substantive Hearing
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to Secretary of State and Corby Borough Council, with reductions.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Judicial Review Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cottingham Parish Council
Claimant
Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities
First Defendant
Corby Borough Council
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Substantive Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Entitlement to costs following judicial review
- 2 Assessment of reasonable costs
- 3 Double counting in costs schedule
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the Secretary of State and Corby Borough Council were entitled to costs, but reduced the hours claimed for document review and assessed Corby Borough Council's costs at £3,250, finding the case exceptional under Bolton but noting the hearing was unnecessary.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to Secretary of State and Corby Borough Council, with reductions.
Orders
- Secretary of State's costs reduced for document review to 15 hours.
- Corby Borough Council's costs assessed at £3,250.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment