Introduction

The case of Parveen, R (on the application of) v. London Borough of Redbridge ([2020] EWCA Civ 194) examines the complex issue of cost allocation in public law judicial review proceedings, particularly when a claim is withdrawn after substantial relief has been granted. The appellant, Parveen, sought judicial review against the London Borough of Redbridge over the suitability of the temporary accommodation provided to her and her six daughters. After a series of legal and administrative interactions, the appellant withdrew her claim, asserting that she had effectively secured the relief she sought, including self-contained accommodation. The core of the appeal centered on whether Parveen should be awarded her legal costs based on the guidance established in M v Croydon London Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 595.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ultimately dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The presiding judges concluded that without a full trial of the claim, it was impossible to establish a clear causal link between the judicial review proceedings and the offer of alternative accommodation provided by the council. Consequently, the court ruled that neither party warranted an award of costs to the other, affirming the initial decision to order that each party bears its own costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily referenced several key precedents that shape the courts' approach to cost allocation in public law cases:

• M v Croydon London Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 595 - This case established foundational principles regarding cost awards in judicial review proceedings, particularly when a claim is conceded or withdrawn.
• Lejonvarn v Burgess [2020] EWCA Civ 114 - Reiterated the approach to appeals about costs, emphasizing the high threshold for interfering with first-instance cost decisions.
• Ersus v London Borough of Redbridge [2016] EWHC 1025 (QB) - Addressed causation in cost awards, highlighting situations where it's unclear if proceedings directly caused the relief obtained.
• RL v Croydon London Borough Council [2018] EWCA Civ 726 - Explored the nuances of causation and proportionality in awarding costs, especially when relief is partially granted.

Legal Reasoning

The court's analysis pivoted on the concept of causation—whether the withdrawal of the judicial review claim directly resulted in the appellant obtaining the relief she sought. The judgment underscored that:

• Discretionary Nature of Cost Awards: Following M v Croydon, cost awards in judicial review cases are highly fact-specific and remain at the discretion of the court.
• Link Between Proceedings and Relief: Merely obtaining relief does not automatically entitle the claimant to costs. There must be a clear causal link showing that the proceedings influenced the outcome.
• Proportionality and Practicality: Courts must avoid disproportionate investigations into cost allocations, especially when establishing causation is speculative and resource-intensive.

In Parveen's case, although it appeared that the appellant achieved her objectives, the court found that it could not definitively assert that the judicial review proceedings caused the council to provide the suitable accommodation. Given the complexity and resource implications of such a determination, the court opted not to award costs.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent criteria under which costs may be awarded in public law cases where claims are withdrawn. Future litigants must recognize that achieving substantial relief does not necessarily guarantee the recovery of legal costs unless a direct causal relationship can be established. Additionally, the case underscores the courts' reluctance to engage in extensive factual inquiries to determine cost allocations, promoting a balanced and pragmatic approach.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Causation in Cost Awards

Causation refers to the necessity of proving that the legal proceedings directly led to the outcome or relief obtained. In cost allocation, it's not enough to show that a claimant achieved their desired result; there must be evidence that the legal action was a contributing factor. Without clear causation, awarding costs becomes unjustifiable.

M v Croydon Guidance

Established in M v Croydon London Borough Council, the guidance outlines how costs should be approached in judicial review cases, especially when claims are settled or withdrawn. It emphasizes:

• The primary discretion lies with the trial judge, and appellate courts defer to these decisions unless there's a clear legal error or unjust outcome.
• The successful party generally should recover costs unless specific circumstances warrant otherwise.
• The success may not only be about obtaining the relief but could also involve obtaining it sooner than it would have been otherwise.

Conclusion

The Parveen v London Borough of Redbridge case serves as a pivotal reference for understanding cost allocations in public law judicial review cases, especially when claims are withdrawn after achieving substantial relief. The judgment reaffirms the principles laid out in M v Croydon, emphasizing the necessity of a clear causal link between proceedings and outcomes to justify cost awards. Additionally, it highlights the judiciary's preference for practical and proportionate approaches in cost determinations, discouraging exhaustive factual investigations that could overwhelm court resources. Practitioners must thus carefully evaluate the likelihood of establishing causation when seeking cost recovery in similar contexts, recognizing that achieving desired outcomes does not automatically entitle them to recover legal costs.