[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 >> Senior -Milne, R (On the Application Of) v Her Majesty's Treasury [2013] EWHC 700 (Admin) (26 February 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/700.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 700 (Admin)

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

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

		Sitting at: Leeds Combined Court 1 Oxford Row Leeds West Yorkshire LS1 3BG
		26th February 2013

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave:

1. This is an application by HM Treasury for three tranches of costs. The first relates to the costs thrown away by the adjournment in their action. Those costs amount to £4,669. The second relates to the costs of this hearing today, amounting to £1,810 costs, and the third relates to the costs of the Acknowledgement of Service made by HHJ Belcher when refusing permission on the papers of £6,804.
2. In his careful submissions Mr Vinall has submitted that HM Treasury should get all three tranches of costs. The first tranche, in relation to costs thrown away by the adjournment, he submits, whilst not ordinarily something that would be granted because appearance at an oral permission hearing does not tend to be lead to an order for costs, the fact of the matter is that the claimant has been unable to justify the adjournment that has taken place and an unnecessary adjournment and costs have been incurred. It was the adjournment that caused the costs to be thrown away, not anything that happened subsequently.
3. In relation to the costs of the this hearing, he submits that it was clearly right and proper that he attended, not least to claim his costs in relation to the adjournment thrown away.
4. As regards the third tranche, which is the costs of the Acknowledgement of Service, it was a detailed document and that is why the costs amount to £6,000-odd. Mr Senior-Milne has not made any cogent submissions in relation to costs. Such points in relation to costs as he might have made were made by Mr Vinall. Costs are at the discretion of the court. It seems to me that a fair order in relation to the first tranche of costs is that the defendant, HM Treasury, receive 50 per cent of the £4,669 in costs.
5. In relation to the second tranche they should receive the whole amount of £1,810 and in relation to the third amount they should receive the whole amount of £6,804. I considered the draft statement of costs and summarily assessed the costs in those sums as fair and reasonable.

MR VINALL: My Lord, sorry to jump up again. The figure in relation to the costs of today should have had the (inaudible) changed.

MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: Forgive me, no, I will correct that. It is £1,734.

MR VINALL: My Lord, yes and in relation to the – yes, that is all.

MR SENIOR-MILNE: Could I also make a point if he is allowed to make a point?

MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: If it's in relation to costs.

MR SENIOR-MILNE: It is quite a short one. Dealing with the submissions made by the defence in relation to the substantive issue of the EU bailout you said just now they were necessarily involved? I am quoting your exact words.

MR VINALL: I don't dispute the quote, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: That's right.

MR SENIOR-MILNE: You said they were necessarily involved, so on paper, in my witness statement when I am explaining the judicial review process I quote a House of Lords case where Lord – I can't remember his name - he had actually said, he deals with the purpose of a judicial review application at the permission stage and he says the purpose of the permission stage is to decide "without going into the matter in any depth". In other words the House of Lords says you shall not go into the matter in any depth. Right? The defence just now has said that their arguments were necessarily involved, but the House of Lords contradicts him. They are not necessarily involved. You don't need to go into matters in any depth at the permission stage. OK?

MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: Mr Senior-Milne, if I can interrupt you there. The costs related to the Acknowledgement of Service in relation to the proceedings which you brought against HM Treasury, and it was necessary for HM Treasury to respond in detail to your claim.

MR SENIOR-MILNE: That is wrong. You said it is not in detail. The House of Lords and this is binding on you, as a lower court, it says "without going into the matter in any depth". I mean how plain do I have to make it to you people?

MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: I have already made my ruling in relation to the Acknowledgement of Service.

MR SENIOR-MILNE: I mean I know you have made it. I mean it's going to be appealed and it is going to go to the European Court of Human Rights and you are going to get your money anyway, so you are wasting your time. You are absolutely wrong. You are being vindictive. The House of Lords says "without going into the matter in any depth". It is binding on you, that is the law, ok? You say "in detail". He says "necessarily involved". You are both wrong. This is absolute falsehood. It is criminality. You are defrauding me. This is fraud by abuse of position, section 4 of the Theft Act, and I am going to bring a private prosecution against you for that. OK? On that basis. The House of Lords says "without going into the matter in any depth". They produced vast amounts of arguments and they knew they would get their costs back at a corrupt judge, which is exactly what has happened, ok? Black and white, you have lost the argument.

MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: And we are now going to turn Mr Senior-Milne to the final matter which I presaged earlier, which is that I am minded subject to the submissions --

MR SENIOR-MILNE: I must advise you your conduct is criminal.

MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: Please do not interrupt.

MR SENIOR-MILNE: Your conduct is criminal. This is fraud by abuse of position under section 4 of -- I think it's the Fraud Act.

MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: I am now going to turn to the question of the extended civil restraint order, which I indicated, subject to any submissions you might now have to make, as to why making such an order is something that is not appropriate.