King's Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning

King's Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning

The trial judge did not err in principle in making no order as to costs. There was a prima facie case for contempt, but the declaration sought was of no practical value, and the litigation had lost utility. The judge's discretion was properly exercised, and the appellant was not simply the 'successful party.' The legally aided status was relevant only to the utility of continuing proceedings, not to the costs order itself.

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
Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From High Court (order as to Costs)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Discretion of Trial Judge, Legal Aid, Committal Proceedings, Success in Litigation
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Orders Discretion of Trial Judge Legal Aid Committal Proceedings Success in Litigation

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

Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From High Court (order as to Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making no order as to costs after committal proceedings were discontinued against the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was the 'successful party' for the purposes of costs
  3. 3 Whether it was wrong in principle to consider the appellant's legally aided status in the costs decision

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in principle in making no order as to costs. There was a prima facie case for contempt, but the declaration sought was of no practical value, and the litigation had lost utility. The judge's discretion was properly exercised, and the appellant was not simply the 'successful party.' The legally aided status was relevant only to the utility of continuing proceedings, not to the costs order itself.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs; trial judge's order affirmed