High court rules on statutory nuisance costs appeal

7 Feb 2025Court Report

The High Court addressed costs in a statutory nuisance appeal, highlighting complexities in distinguishing civil and criminal cost regimes

Introduction

The High Court recently delivered a significant judgment concerning the costs of an appeal in a statutory nuisance case. The case involved Oliver Lewis, the appellant, and Sarah Louise Francis and Stephane Borie, the respondents. The appeal was heard in the Administrative Court of the King's Bench Division, with Mr Justice Kerr presiding.

Background

The case originated from a statutory nuisance proceeding initiated by Lewis against Francis and Borie, which was dismissed by the North East Wales Magistrates' Court. The court ordered Lewis to pay the respondents' costs, assessed at £10,123.20. Lewis appealed this decision, arguing that the costs order was wrong in law.

Judgment on Costs

In his main judgment, Mr Justice Kerr overturned the magistrates' court's costs order, determining it was incorrect under both the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 and the Civil Procedure Rules. He directed that most of the respondents' costs should be paid from central funds, except for the costs associated with expert veterinary evidence, which he deemed unnecessary.

Legal Framework

The judgment explored the intersection of civil and criminal cost regimes in appeals by case stated. It considered the applicability of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and relevant case law, including Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd and Hull and Holderness Magistrates' Court v. Darroch. The court examined whether the civil costs regime could apply in a criminal cause or matter, particularly in exceptional circumstances.

Exceptional Circumstances

Mr Justice Kerr concluded that the case presented exceptional circumstances warranting the application of the civil costs regime. He noted that the appeal was against a costs order alone, involved complex legal issues, and required expert legal representation, which would otherwise render the appeal financially prohibitive for the appellant.

Outcome and Implications

The court ordered that the respondents pay 65% of Lewis's reasonably incurred costs, amounting to £5,492.44. This decision underscores the potential for civil cost recovery in mixed civil-criminal proceedings under exceptional conditions, providing crucial guidance for future cases.

Parties' Arguments

The appellant argued that the respondents' application for costs was based on an error by the magistrates' court and that the appeal was necessary to correct this injustice. The respondents contended that the criminal costs regime should apply, as the appeal was a criminal cause or matter, and their conduct was reasonable in defending the costs order.

Conclusion

This judgment highlights the complexities involved in distinguishing between civil and criminal cost regimes in statutory nuisance cases. It provides a framework for determining when the civil regime may apply, offering valuable insights for legal practitioners navigating similar appeals.