Multiple Cost Entitlements in Statutory Review Applications: An Analysis of CPRE Kent v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ([2021] UKSC 36)

Introduction

The case of CPRE Kent v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ([2021] UKSC 36) addresses the intricate issue of cost entitlements in the context of statutory reviews of planning decisions. CPRE Kent, representing the Campaign to Protect Rural England in Kent, sought a statutory review under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, challenging the adoption of a local plan policy (EMP1(4)) by Maidstone Borough Council. The central legal question revolved around whether multiple parties (defendants and an interested party) are prima facie entitled to recover their costs in preparing separate acknowledgments of service and summary grounds when a statutory review claim is refused at the permission stage.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court unanimously dismissed CPRE Kent's appeal against an order for costs, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision. The Supreme Court upheld the practice that, in the context of a refused statutory review permission, multiple defendants and interested parties each have a prima facie entitlement to recover their reasonable and proportionate costs associated with preparing separate acknowledgments of service and summary grounds. This decision clarifies the application of Civil Procedure Rules, particularly CPR Part 54 and Practice Direction 54A, extending their relevance beyond traditional judicial reviews to statutory reviews under Practice Direction 8C.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shape the current understanding of cost entitlements in statutory reviews:

• Bolton Metropolitan District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (Practice Note) [1995] 1 WLR 1176: Established initial guidance on cost allocations in multiple representations during planning appeals.
• In re Leach [2001] EWHC Admin 455: Highlighted the obligations under CPR Part 54 for defendants and interested parties to file acknowledgments of service.
• R (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster City Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1346: Affirmed the entitlement of defendants and interested parties to recover costs for filing acknowledgments of service in statutory reviews.
• R (Gourlay) v Parole Board [2020] UKSC 50: Provided guidance on the appellate courts' role in developing principles related to cost orders, emphasizing deference to the Court of Appeal unless an error of law is established.
• R (Luton Borough Council) v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWCA Civ 537: Reinforced the position that costs for filing acknowledgments of service are recoverable from claimants in judicial reviews.

These precedents collectively underscore a trajectory towards recognizing the necessity of compensating multiple parties for procedural costs incurred during the initial stages of statutory reviews, ensuring that administrative and interested parties are not financially dissuaded from participating in legal proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's reasoning centers on interpreting the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and associated Practice Directions (PD) governing statutory reviews under PD 8C and judicial reviews under CPR Part 54. The Court elucidated that:

• The mandatory nature of filing an acknowledgment of service for defendants and interested parties wishing to participate in the review process.
• Each party's effort in preparing separate acknowledgment documents and summary grounds constitutes a prima facie entitlement to recover costs upon refusal of permission for the review.
• The principles established in prior cases, such as Bolton and Mount Cook, remain relevant but must be read in light of procedural innovations introduced in the CPR.
• Costs awarded must remain reasonable and proportionate, ensuring that entitlement does not translate into undue financial burdens on claimants beyond what is justified by the participation of multiple parties.

The Court emphasized that while the Supreme Court defers to the Court of Appeal's expertise in developing practice guidelines, exceptions are permissible only in cases of clear legal error or issues of general public importance. In this instance, no such error was identified, and the existing legal framework adequately supports the entitlement to multiple cost recoveries.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future statutory and judicial review cases, particularly in the planning context:

• Clarification of Cost Entitlements: Affirming that multiple defendants and interested parties can recover costs for procedural steps enhances transparency and fairness in legal proceedings.
• Access to Justice: While ensuring procedural costs are covered, the House of Lords' earlier concerns about high costs acting as barriers to access remain pertinent, necessitating a balance between fair compensation and avoiding undue financial strain on claimants.
• Procedural Compliance: Parties must diligently adhere to CPR and PD requirements to safeguard their rights to cost recoveries, emphasizing the importance of timely and accurate filing of requisite documents.
• Legal Strategy: Claimants may need to factor in the potential for multiple cost recoveries when initiating statutory reviews, influencing litigation strategies and resource allocation.

Overall, the decision reinforces the procedural integrity of statutory reviews while ensuring that administrative and interested parties are not penalized financially for fulfilling their participation obligations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts are integral to understanding this judgment:

• Statutory Review: A procedure allowing individuals or organizations to challenge the legality of administrative decisions made by public bodies.
• Acknowledgment of Service: A formal document filed by a defendant or interested party indicating their intention to participate in the legal proceedings and contest the claim.
• Prima Facie Entitlement: An initial, provisional right to claim costs unless evidence suggests otherwise.
• Reasonable and Proportionate Costs: Expenses must be justifiable and not excessive relative to the matters at hand.
• Permission Stage: The initial phase of a statutory review where the court decides whether to grant the full claim for substantive review.

Understanding these terms is essential for comprehending the court's rationale. The judgment navigates the complexities of how procedural obligations interplay with cost recoveries, ensuring that administrative fairness is maintained without imposing undue burdens on any party involved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in CPRE Kent v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government reaffirms the entitlement of multiple defendants and interested parties to recover reasonable and proportionate costs in statutory review applications when permission is refused. By upholding the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the Civil Procedure Rules and associated Practice Directions, the judgment reinforces the procedural framework governing statutory reviews, balancing the need for administrative efficiency with the protection of participants' financial interests. This ruling not only clarifies existing legal precedents but also sets a clear standard for cost recoveries in future statutory and judicial review proceedings, thereby contributing to the broader discourse on access to justice and administrative law.