Cherkley Campaign Ltd, R (on the application of) v Mole Valley District Council & Anor [2013] EWHC 3558 (Admin) (15 November 2013)

Cherkley Campaign Ltd, R (on the application of) v Mole Valley District Council & Anor [2013] EWHC 3558 (Admin) (15 November 2013)

The Claimant is entitled to full costs of the substantive claim and hearing against the Defendant, except for the costs of the pre-action protocol letter, as the unsuccessful grounds were reasonably pursued and closely related to the successful ones. The Claimant cannot recover pre-action protocol costs as it was not incorporated at the time and thus not liable for those costs. The Interested Party must pay the Claimant's costs of the interim injunction proceedings, as the injunction was necessary due to the Interested Party's refusal to halt works and the arguments of abuse of process and lack of full and frank disclosure were rejected.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3558 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Cherkley Campaign Limited; Defendant: Mole Valley District Council; Interested Party: Longshot Cherkley Court Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Judgment and Order
Outcome
Costs awarded as specified in the order, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, and stayed pending appeal.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Costs Orders, Planning Permission, Interim Injunctions
Administrative Law Planning Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Costs Orders Planning Permission Interim Injunctions

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cherkley Campaign Limited

Claimant

Mole Valley District Council

Defendant

Longshot Cherkley Court Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to full costs despite not succeeding on all grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant can recover costs for a pre-action protocol letter sent before its incorporation
  3. 3 Which party should bear the costs of interim injunction proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant is entitled to full costs of the substantive claim and hearing against the Defendant, except for the costs of the pre-action protocol letter, as the unsuccessful grounds were reasonably pursued and closely related to the successful ones. The Claimant cannot recover pre-action protocol costs as it was not incorporated at the time and thus not liable for those costs. The Interested Party must pay the Claimant's costs of the interim injunction proceedings, as the injunction was necessary due to the Interested Party's refusal to halt works and the arguments of abuse of process and lack of full and frank disclosure were rejected.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded as specified in the order, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, and stayed pending appeal.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant's costs of the substantive claim to 22 August 2013, except for the pre-action protocol letter costs.
  • Interested Party to pay Claimant's costs of interim injunction proceedings from 18 March 2013 to 22 August 2013.