Dowler v Merseyrail [2009] EWHC 558 (Admin) (04 March 2009)

Dowler v Merseyrail [2009] EWHC 558 (Admin) (04 March 2009)

The magistrates' court misapplied the Practice Direction by relying only on the claimant's conduct in bringing suspicion on himself, without the necessary element of misleading the prosecution. The refusal to make a costs order was unreasonable and contrary to the required legal standard. The court also failed in its duty to give contemporaneous reasons for refusal.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 558 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: David Dowler; Defendant: Merseyrail
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Defendant's Costs Order, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Practice Direction (costs: Criminal Proceedings), Caution Vs Conviction, Requirement to Give Reasons
Criminal Law Costs Defendant's Costs Order Exercise of Judicial Discretion Practice Direction (costs: Criminal Proceedings) Caution Vs Conviction Requirement to Give Reasons

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Dowler

Claimant

Merseyrail

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates' court properly exercised its discretion in refusing a defendant's costs order after proceedings were withdrawn and a caution accepted
  2. 2 Whether the magistrates' court was required to give reasons for refusing the costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates' court misapplied the Practice Direction by relying only on the claimant's conduct in bringing suspicion on himself, without the necessary element of misleading the prosecution. The refusal to make a costs order was unreasonable and contrary to the required legal standard. The court also failed in its duty to give contemporaneous reasons for refusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the magistrates' court refusing costs is quashed
  • Defendant's costs order to be made in favour of the claimant for costs from Central Funds, including costs incurred between refusal and application