Hubert, R (on the application of) v Manchester Crown Court & Anor

Hubert, R (on the application of) v Manchester Crown Court & Anor

The judge was entitled to conclude that the claimant's persistence in prosecuting without sufficient evidence, after abandoning judicial review, constituted an improper act under the relevant costs regime, justifying the costs order.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Aisling Hubert; Defendant: Manchester Crown Court; Interested Party: Dr Prabha Sivaraman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application Refused
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Private Prosecution, Costs Orders, Improper Prosecution, Evidential Sufficiency, Judicial Discretion
Criminal Law Judicial Review Costs Private Prosecution Costs Orders Improper Prosecution Evidential Sufficiency Judicial Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aisling Hubert

Claimant

Manchester Crown Court

Defendant

Dr Prabha Sivaraman

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order against the private prosecutor was lawful and justified
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in finding the prosecution improper or unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the judge improperly inferred reasons for withdrawal of judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to conclude that the claimant's persistence in prosecuting without sufficient evidence, after abandoning judicial review, constituted an improper act under the relevant costs regime, justifying the costs order.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Costs order against claimant in the sum of £25,000 upheld