CC v Disclosure and Barring Service

The DBS's conduct in defending the appeal was not unreasonable given their statutory function and the information available to them at the time. The evidence, though ultimately found insufficient, permitted a reasonable explanation for their actions. The threshold for awarding costs under Rule 10(3)(d) was not met.

Parties: Appellant: CC; Respondent: Disclosure and Barring Service
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 16 December 2024
Procedural Posture: Costs Application Following Appeal Under Section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 / Post Appeal Costs Determination in the Upper Tribunal
Outcome: Application for costs dismissed
Legal Topics: Costs in Tribunal Proceedings, Unreasonable Conduct, Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups, Mistake of Fact

Administrative Law Safeguarding Law Costs in Tribunal Proceedings Unreasonable Conduct Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Mistake of Fact

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

Appellant

Disclosure and Barring Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Appeal Under Section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 / Post Appeal Costs Determination in the Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the DBS or its representative acted unreasonably in defending the appeal, justifying a costs order under Rule 10(3)(d) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed