Allan v South Tyneside Law Courts

Allan v South Tyneside Law Courts

District judge failed to specifically address whether costs were properly incurred between the claimant's arrest and the discontinuance of proceedings; claimant entitled to costs for that period, assessed at £400.

Parties
Claimant: Allan; Defendant: South Tyneside Law Courts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission; Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; appeal allowed in part; district judge's order set aside; defendant's costs order made for £400.
Legal Topics
Defendant's Costs Order, Judicial Discretion, Extension of Time, Public Order Act Offences
Criminal Law Administrative Law Defendant's Costs Order Judicial Discretion Extension of Time Public Order Act Offences

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan

Claimant

South Tyneside Law Courts

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission; Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the district judge erred in refusing the claimant's application for a defendant's costs order
  2. 2 Whether costs incurred between arrest and discontinuance were properly considered
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to an extension of time for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

District judge failed to specifically address whether costs were properly incurred between the claimant's arrest and the discontinuance of proceedings; claimant entitled to costs for that period, assessed at £400.

Court Disposition

Application granted; appeal allowed in part; district judge's order set aside; defendant's costs order made for £400.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted for costs incurred between 18 November 2008 and 19 December 2008.
  • District judge's order set aside.