[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Canterbury City Council v Knight [2013] EWHC 1329 (Admin) (03 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/1329.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 1329 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		3 May 2013

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This an appeal by way of case stated against the decision of Margate Magistrates' Court, which in May 2010 made an order that the appellant city council pay a proportion of the costs of the respondent.
2. This is a~licensing appeal. There was an indication given by the parties to the court that the appeal might be withdrawn on the basis of a consent order. A draft was submitted that the action be discontinued by agreement between the parties and that the applicant (that is to say the city council) should pay an amount of £2,200 towards the respondent's costs.
3. The parties were informed that the court was not able to act unless there was a~signed consent order and certainly there had to be an application in writing. But again, the matter could not be disposed of simply on the basis that the parties were in the process of reaching agreement. The court should have been notified what the precise position was. Despite that, neither side has turned up before me although it was known that the appeal would continue to be listed.
4. The reality is that this was, in my view, an utterly hopeless appeal. It is to be noted that there was a refusal initially to state a case but a mandatory order was made, it seems without contest in the end following a judicial review claim, by King J.
5. What happened here was that the city council Licensing Sub Committee decided in November 2009 to impose various conditions on the licence for a public house which limited the operation of the premises.
6. Notice of appeal was served and putting it briefly: before the magistrates in the end there was an agreement as to the extent to which there should be a variation. The difficulty was that the city council did not engage in the process of deciding (as eventually they did) on the appropriate variations. Furthermore, there was an expert's report which the city council indicated was not to be challenged but on the first day of the two day hearing which had been allocated to this case, it was indicated that the expert had to attend which of course increased costs.
7. In the end, the justices decided that the court had a broad discretion. The general rule was that he who lost an appeal should pay but there were circumstances where this was not just and reasonable. So far as the local authority was concerned, costs should not be ordered to be paid if it had acted reasonably, properly and honestly. There was a need to encourage public authorities to make a stand, by honest, reasonable and sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice.
8. It then set out how the council has been approached by email suggesting discussions for a compromise, and that had not been properly responded to. The council's case was that since the decision had been made by a sub committee, the officers could not vary it. That seems to me, with respect, to be complete nonsense: there is nothing to stop them engaging with the committee and seeking to persuade the committee to reach or to agree with the compromise which in the end was accepted as being entirely reasonable.
9. Further, there was the problem of the increased costs in relation to the expert. Accordingly, the order was that the council pay a substantial proportion it seems of the costs.
10. As far as I can see, there is no possible error of law in that decision and it seems to me that since the parties have not bothered to engage with the court properly, the result is (and would inevitably have been in any event) that this appeal is dismissed.
11. Since no one has turned up, I suppose I have to leave open the possibility of an application which will have to be based on very strong material on the part of the city council that this decision be reconsidered. They have 7 days in which to make any such application which will be considered initially on paper if they make it and further consideration if necessary, can be given. I do not in the least for obvious reasons encourage it. As I said at the outset, this is, in my judgment, a completely hopeless appeal.