Description
Judgment concerning costs in judicial review proceedings where the claimant was funded by the Legal Aid Agency under a high costs case plan and both parties had won on two distinct issues. The costs of the issue the claimant lost were substantially greater than those of the issue it won, raising the issue of whether set off was appropriate.
Held: The discretion to order a set off of the costs to which the claimant is entitled against the costs to which the Secretary of State is entitled, where the issues are so closely connected and the claimant is legally aided, will ordinarily be exercisd in favour of a set off. That a party is legally aided should not affect the rights of any other party to the proceedings (
s.22(4), Access to Justice Act 1999).
In the present case, it wasn't equitable to depart from the ordinary rule. To do so would result in the Secretary of State paying a considerable amount of the claimant's costs but recovering nothing of the costs he was entitled to.
