AC v OFSTED rev 1 [2003] EWCST 247(EY) (16 February 2004)

AC v OFSTED rev 1 [2003] EWCST 247(EY) (16 February 2004)

The appellant failed to satisfy the Tribunal to the required high standard that OFSTED acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings; therefore, no costs order is justified.

Citation
[2003] EWCST 247
Parties
Appellant: AC; Respondent: OFSTED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Order / Post Appeal, Costs Determination
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Unreasonable Conduct, Suspension of Registration
Administrative Law Child Care Law Costs Orders Unreasonable Conduct Suspension of Registration

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AC

Appellant

OFSTED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs Order / Post Appeal, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether OFSTED acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings so as to justify a costs order under Regulation 24

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to satisfy the Tribunal to the required high standard that OFSTED acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings; therefore, no costs order is justified.

Court Disposition

application refused