King's Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning [2016] EWCA Civ 1037 (26 October 2016)

King's Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning [2016] EWCA Civ 1037 (26 October 2016)

The trial judge exercised his discretion properly in making no order as to costs, given there was prima facie evidence of contempt, the declaration sought was of no practical utility, and the litigation had become academic. The legally aided status of the appellant was relevant only to the utility of continuing proceedings, not to the costs order itself. The appellant was not clearly the successful party, and the judge's order was a proper exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 1037
Parties
Claimant/respondent: King's Lynn and West Norfolk Council; Defendant/appellant: Michelle Paula Bunning
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Costs Order in Contempt Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Committal Proceedings, Legal Aid, Discretion of Trial Judge
Civil Procedure Local Government Law Contempt of Court Costs Orders Committal Proceedings Legal Aid Discretion of Trial Judge

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

King's Lynn and West Norfolk Council

Claimant/respondent

Michelle Paula Bunning

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Costs Order in Contempt Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making no order as to costs after declining to make a declaration of contempt against the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the legally aided status of the appellant was wrongly considered in the costs decision

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge exercised his discretion properly in making no order as to costs, given there was prima facie evidence of contempt, the declaration sought was of no practical utility, and the litigation had become academic. The legally aided status of the appellant was relevant only to the utility of continuing proceedings, not to the costs order itself. The appellant was not clearly the successful party, and the judge's order was a proper exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs; original order of the High Court affirmed