Introduction

The case of CPRE Kent v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ([2021] UKSC 36) addresses significant issues concerning the allocation of legal costs in the context of statutory planning reviews. The appellant, CPRE-Kent, a charity focused on preserving the rural landscape, sought a statutory review against the adoption of a local plan policy that designated land for development. The crux of the case revolved around whether multiple defendants and an interested party could be awarded their own costs following the refusal of CPRE-Kent's permission to proceed with the claim.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, affirming that when a statutory review application is refused at the permission stage, each defendant and interested party incurs its own costs for preparing an acknowledgment of service and summary grounds. This decision maintains that multiple parties can be entitled to their costs, provided these costs are reasonable and proportionate. The judgment clarified that procedural rules under CPR Part 54 and PD 8C permit such cost allocations, departing from earlier practices that might have limited cost awards to a single party.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents:

• Bolton Metropolitan District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (Practice Note) [1995]: This case provided initial guidance on cost awards in multiple representation scenarios, suggesting that typically only one set of costs would be awarded unless exceptional circumstances warranted otherwise.
• R (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster City Council [2003]: Reinforced the obligation to file an acknowledgment of service and upheld the entitlement to costs for preparing such documents.
• R (Gourlay) v Parole Board [2020] UKSC 50: Emphasized the primary responsibility of the Court of Appeal in developing cost principles, with limited intervention from the Supreme Court unless there is an error of law of general public importance.
• In re Leach [2001]: Highlighted the obligation of defendants to prepare and file acknowledgments of service, influencing cost award decisions.

These precedents collectively supported the Supreme Court's stance that multiple cost awards are permissible under the current procedural framework.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court evaluated whether the Court of Appeal had misapplied the law in allowing multiple cost awards. Lord Hodge, delivering the judgment, concluded that there was no error in law. The court affirmed that under CPR Part 54 and PD 8C, each defendant or interested party who files an acknowledgment of service and summary grounds is within their rights to reclaim their costs if the application is refused. The reasoning emphasized:

• Mandatory Procedures: Filing acknowledgments is mandatory for participation, thereby justifying cost recovery for compliance.
• Reasonableness and Proportionality: Costs awarded must be reasonable and proportionate to the efforts and expenses incurred.
• Evolution of Practice: Procedural innovations under CPR Part 54 necessitate an evolution in cost award practices, moving away from the more restrictive Bolton principles.

Impact

This landmark judgment has profound implications for future statutory and judicial reviews:

• Cost Allocation Clarity: Establishes clear guidelines that multiple parties can seek their own cost recoveries, promoting fairness in legal proceedings.
• Procedural Compliance: Encourages parties to diligently comply with procedural requirements, knowing that such compliance is necessary for cost recovery.
• Access to Justice: While affirming cost recoveries, the judgment also underscores the need for costs to remain reasonable, mitigating potential financial barriers for claimants.
• Judicial Discretion: Maintains the court's discretion in cost awards, ensuring flexibility to assess the specifics of each case.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in CPRE Kent v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government reinforces the principles surrounding cost allocations in statutory planning reviews. By upholding the entitlement of multiple defendants and interested parties to their own costs, the judgment aligns with procedural advancements under CPR Part 54 and PD 8C. This decision balances the need for fair compensation with the imperative to maintain reasonable cost structures, thereby shaping the landscape of future legal challenges in the planning domain.