Stamford Chamber of Trade & Commerce, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 1126 (Admin) (07 April 2009)

Stamford Chamber of Trade & Commerce, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 1126 (Admin) (07 April 2009)

Given two separate decisions were challenged and both defendants had reasonable grounds to defend, the court exercised its discretion to order claimants to pay both defendants' costs in full. Overlap in submissions did not justify a reduction in costs awarded.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1126 (Admin)
Parties
First Claimant: Stamford Chamber of Trade and Commerce; Second Claimant: F H Gilman & Co; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: South Kesteven District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment: Costs and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Claimants ordered to pay both defendants' costs in full; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs in Judicial Review, Local Planning Authority Decisions, Secretary of State Powers Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Permission to Appeal
Administrative Law Planning Law Costs in Judicial Review Local Planning Authority Decisions Secretary of State Powers Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Permission to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stamford Chamber of Trade and Commerce

First Claimant

F H Gilman & Co

Second Claimant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

South Kesteven District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment: Costs and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants should pay the costs of both defendants in full
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Given two separate decisions were challenged and both defendants had reasonable grounds to defend, the court exercised its discretion to order claimants to pay both defendants' costs in full. Overlap in submissions did not justify a reduction in costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Claimants ordered to pay both defendants' costs in full; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay the costs of both defendants, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Permission to appeal refused.