Parveen, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant and her five eldest daughters arrived in the United Kingdom from Pakistan in 2011, with the Appellant pregnant with her sixth daughter. She was a victim of severe domestic violence, had limited English proficiency, and restricted mobility. The family was granted leave to remain in October 2018 and was given notice to vacate temporary accommodation by 8th November 2018. The Appellant applied to the Respondent council for housing assistance and was provided with a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) that lacked detailed assessment of her needs.

The council accepted interim and subsequent duties under the Housing Act 1996 to provide accommodation. The Appellant’s solicitors sent a pre-action letter demanding suitable self-contained accommodation by the deadline, highlighting the Appellant's medical and domestic violence circumstances. The council initially provided accommodation in a mixed-sex family hostel, which the Appellant contested as unsuitable. Judicial review proceedings were issued on 12th November 2018, challenging the adequacy of the PHP and the suitability of the accommodation.

The council argued the accommodation was suitable as short-term housing given the severe shortage and the Appellant's preference to remain near schools. The council accepted a full housing duty but maintained the accommodation was suitable temporary housing. The Appellant requested a review which was upheld by the council. Judicial review permission was granted despite the council’s contention that alternative remedies were available.

Subsequently, the Appellant provided a medical report supporting the need for self-contained accommodation. The council offered such accommodation on 22nd February 2019, which the Appellant accepted. The claim was withdrawn with costs to be determined by the court. The Administrative Court judge ordered that each party bear its own costs, finding it impossible without a full trial to determine any causal connection between the judicial review claim and the accommodation offer. The Appellant appealed that decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant was the successful party entitled to costs after withdrawing judicial review proceedings having obtained substantially all relief sought.
2. Whether there was a causal connection between the judicial review claim and the offer of alternative accommodation.
3. The proper application of the guidance set out in M v Croydon London Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 595 regarding costs awards in public law cases settled or withdrawn before trial.
4. Whether the Administrative Court judge erred in principle, or exercised discretion unjustly or perversely, in ordering no costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended she was the successful party, having obtained substantially all relief sought, including alternative accommodation and a revised PHP.
• The judge failed to apply the M v Croydon guidance properly and did not consider who was the successful party or whether it was tolerably clear the Appellant would have succeeded if the claim had proceeded.
• There was a causal link between the judicial review claim and the offer of alternative accommodation, as the council prioritized the Appellant’s case after receipt of the medical report.
• The council’s conduct merited an award of costs in the Appellant’s favor.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge’s decision was a proper exercise of discretion and should not be interfered with on appeal.
• Neither party conceded the other’s arguments; the claim was withdrawn, and the starting point for costs is that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs.
• The judge was entitled to conclude it was impossible to determine any causal connection between the judicial review claim and the offer of accommodation.
• The Appellant did not obtain the declarations sought, and the substantive outcome was uncertain given the burden of proof on irrationality.
• The council’s conduct was reasonable and did not justify a costs award in favor of the Appellant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the procedural context: the claim was withdrawn with costs to be determined on paper. It accepted the Appellant had obtained substantially all relief sought, namely suitable self-contained accommodation and a revised PHP. However, the critical issue was causation—whether the judicial review claim caused or materially contributed to the relief obtained.

The judge had found it impossible without a full trial to determine any causal connection between the claim and the offer of accommodation. The court agreed this was a proper exercise of discretion, especially given the limited submissions on causation and the summary nature of the costs determination. The court noted that the timing of the accommodation offer might suggest causation, but the evidence was not sufficiently clear and the judge was not required to conduct an extensive inquiry.

The court also considered the merits of the underlying claim, recognizing that suitability of accommodation is fact-specific and that the council’s position was not irrational. The judge was entitled to find uncertainty as to who would have succeeded if the claim had proceeded.

The court further found that the Appellant’s complaints about the council’s conduct were insubstantial and did not justify a different costs order. The judge’s decision to make no order for costs was therefore neither legally erroneous nor an unjust or perverse exercise of discretion.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against the costs order.

The direct effect is that each party must bear its own costs of the judicial review claim. The Appellant is ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal, subject to assessment and limits under legal aid regulations. No new precedent was established; the decision reaffirms the discretionary and fact-sensitive nature of costs awards in public law cases where claims are withdrawn after obtaining relief and highlights the importance of causation and proportionality in such determinations.