Mlundira v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 189 (KB) (31 January 2025)

Mlundira v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 189 (KB) (31 January 2025)

The judge did not err in principle or act perversely in ordering the appellant to pay 80% of the respondent's costs, as the respondent was justified in making the application due to procedural defects and the appellant's unreasonable conduct; the judge's discretion was properly exercised and the appeal court will...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 189 (KB)
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Steven Mlundira; Respondent / Defendant: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs) / Judgment on Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment of Costs, CPR 47.6, CPR 44.2, Default Costs Certificate, Litigant in Person, Appeals Against Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs CPR 47.6 CPR 44.2 Default Costs Certificate Litigant in Person Appeals Against Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Mlundira

Appellant / Claimant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs) / Judgment on Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs judge erred in ordering the appellant to pay 80% of the respondent's costs for interim applications
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's application to strike out was premature
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to apply the general rule on costs under CPR 44.2(2)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not err in principle or act perversely in ordering the appellant to pay 80% of the respondent's costs, as the respondent was justified in making the application due to procedural defects and the appellant's unreasonable conduct; the judge's discretion was properly exercised and the appeal court will not interfere.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondent the original costs order of £1,440 within 21 days
  • Appellant to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £4,596.48 within 21 days