Taylor v Honiton Town Council & Anor

Taylor v Honiton Town Council & Anor

The claimant succeeded in securing the quashing of the sanctions decision, but the defendant had offered to settle and pay costs before proceedings were issued and again shortly thereafter. The claimant's refusal to settle and continuation of proceedings was unreasonable from 19th March 2016 onwards. Therefore, costs should be apportioned: the defendant pays the claimant’s costs up to 19th March 2016; the claimant pays the defendant’s costs from 20th March 2016 onwards.

Parties
Claimant: John Taylor; Defendant: Honiton Town Council; Interested Party: East Devon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Ruling After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Costs apportioned: defendant to pay claimant’s costs up to 19th March 2016; claimant to pay defendant’s costs from 20th March 2016 onwards.
Legal Topics
Costs, Sanctions, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Local Government Law Costs Sanctions Judicial Review Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Taylor

Claimant

Honiton Town Council

Defendant

East Devon District Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Ruling After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant or defendant should bear the costs of proceedings given the conduct of both parties and offers to settle
  2. 2 Whether the claimant acted unreasonably in continuing proceedings after offers to settle were made
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's conduct justified a departure from the general rule on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant succeeded in securing the quashing of the sanctions decision, but the defendant had offered to settle and pay costs before proceedings were issued and again shortly thereafter. The claimant's refusal to settle and continuation of proceedings was unreasonable from 19th March 2016 onwards. Therefore, costs should be apportioned: the defendant pays the claimant’s costs up to 19th March 2016; the claimant pays the defendant’s costs from 20th March 2016 onwards.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned: defendant to pay claimant’s costs up to 19th March 2016; claimant to pay defendant’s costs from 20th March 2016 onwards.

Orders

  • The defendant will pay the claimant’s costs of the proceedings on the standard basis to be assessed if not agreed in so far as those costs were incurred up to and including the 19th March 2016.
  • The claimant will pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings on the standard basis to be assessed if not agreed in so far as those costs were incurred on and after 20th March 2016.