Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellants were journalists who produced an investigative documentary concerning a historical murder. After authorities investigated the alleged disclosure of confidential documents, search warrants were executed at the Appellants’ homes and business premises, and the Appellants were arrested. A later court found the warrants unlawful and held that the process had failed to protect journalistic sources. [1][2][3][4][5][6]
The Appellants subsequently brought proceedings under section 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and complaints before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (“IPT”). The IPT found unlawful conduct, quashed a Directed Surveillance Authorisation, and awarded each Appellant £4,000 compensation. [7][8]
After delays and inadequate disclosure caused two ineffective hearings, the Appellants sought their wasted costs from the First Respondent. A five-member IPT panel held that it had no jurisdiction to make a costs order. [9][10][11][12][13]
The Court of Appeal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and, if so, whether the IPT had power to award costs or increase compensation to reflect the Appellants’ costs. [14][15][16][17]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the IPT’s costs decision. [18][19]
- Whether the IPT had jurisdiction under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to award costs. [20][21]
- Whether the IPT should have increased the compensation awards to reflect the Appellants’ costs under the principle of just satisfaction. [22][23][24]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The broad power in section 67(7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to make “any other order” included a power to award costs. [25][26]
- Costs should not automatically follow the event, but costs could properly be ordered against public authorities whose unreasonable conduct increased the work and expense of the proceedings. [26][27][28][29]
- Alternatively, the IPT could increase compensation where litigation conduct aggravated the injury, thereby ensuring adequate just satisfaction under the Human Rights Act 1998. [30][31]
- The Court of Appeal should alternatively treat the matter as an application for judicial review if no statutory appeal jurisdiction existed. [17]
Respondents’ Arguments
- The First Respondent opposed a costs order both on the facts and because the IPT lacked jurisdiction to make one. The other Respondents generally adopted that position. [32][33]
- The Respondents argued that the IPT’s costs decision was not an appealable determination or final decision of a preliminary issue under section 67A and section 68 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [34][35][36]
- The Metropolitan Police submitted that aggravated damages could take account of litigation conduct only where that conduct aggravated the compensatable injury, and that such damages would not be equivalent to a costs order. [33][37][38][39][40]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| W v Public Authority (IPT/09/134/C) |
A statutory tribunal has no inherent costs jurisdiction; the case also addressed costs after withdrawal of a complaint. |
The Court considered the decision of limited assistance because it concerned costs against a complainant after withdrawal. [41][42][43] |
| Chatwani v National Crime Agency [2015] UKIPTrib 15_84_88-CH |
The IPT treated itself as a costs-free jurisdiction, although it later made an exceptional costs order following persistent breaches of its orders. |
The later order was treated as unexplained and inconsistent with the earlier reasoning; it did not establish a general costs jurisdiction. [44][45][46][47][48] |
| Dias v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police |
Litigation conduct aggravating a human-rights violation may justify increased compensation, but not an equivalent costs award. |
The Court endorsed this reasoning and held that the IPT was entitled not to increase the Appellants’ compensation. [49][50][51][52][53] |
| Wilson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] 1 Costs LR 11 |
The IPT had previously recognised uncertainty about its costs jurisdiction and assumed, for that case, that any jurisdiction would be confined to rare and highly unusual cases. |
The decision demonstrated the unsettled nature of the IPT’s previous case law but did not supply a statutory basis for costs. [54][55][56][57][58] |
| C7 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 265; [2023] KB 317 |
A statutory tribunal has no inherent or implied power to award costs where the statutory scheme contains no such power or authorised rule. |
The Court regarded the reasoning as relevant by analogy to the IPT’s statutory framework. [59][60][61][62][63][64] |
| Global Santa Fe Drilling (North Sea) Ltd v Lord Advocate [2009] CSIH 43; [2009] SC 575 |
Under Scots law, a sheriff may award expenses in certain administrative or ministerial proceedings where conduct is vexatious. |
The Court agreed that the case did not assist the Appellants because it depended on principles of Scots law not applicable to the IPT. [65][66][67][68] |
| Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 34 |
Under Article 41 of the Convention, domestic legal costs may be recoverable as financial loss flowing from a human-rights violation. |
The Court regarded the decision as exceptional and preferred the approach in Dias for domestic IPT proceedings. [69][70][71][72][73][53] |
| Nikolova v Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96 |
Article 41 recovery is limited to costs actually and necessarily incurred and reasonable in amount. |
The principle was quoted as part of the reasoning in the Strasbourg authority relied upon by the Appellants. [70][71] |
| Smith and Grady v the United Kingdom (just satisfaction), nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96 |
Article 41 requires costs to have been actually and necessarily incurred and reasonable in amount. |
The principle was cited within the discussion of recoverable Strasbourg costs. [70][71] |
| I.J.L., G.M.R. and A.K.P. v the United Kingdom (Article 41) |
Domestic legal costs incurred to prevent or redress a Convention breach may be recoverable under Article 41. |
The principle formed part of the Strasbourg reasoning discussed by the Court. [70][71] |
| [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin) |
The decision was identified as having treated the IPT’s costs ruling as influential in relation to the powers of another statutory tribunal. |
It was mentioned as supporting the importance of resolving the costs issue, rather than as determining the present appeal. [74][75] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The IPT had reserved costs in earlier orders and in its substantive judgment, so its later costs decision formed part of its determination of the complaints. The IPT had not become functus officio. [18][19][76]
On the substantive issue, the Court accepted that a statutory tribunal has no inherent power to award costs. Neither the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 nor the applicable rules expressly referred to costs. [77][20]
The Court rejected the argument that the general wording of section 67(7)—allowing “any other order” considered appropriate—implicitly included costs. The listed examples were substantive remedies, and Parliament could readily have included costs had that been intended. [20][21]
The proposed interpretation also created uncertainty about whether costs could be awarded against applicants, respondents, or both; whether costs would follow the event; and whether costs could be ordered before final determination. Those policy choices were matters for Parliament or the rule-maker, not judicial creation by the IPT. [78][79][80][81][82][83][84]
The Court accepted that rules could potentially establish a costs regime under section 69, but no such rules had been made. The IPT therefore lacked jurisdiction to award costs. [85][13][77][84]
As to compensation, the Court accepted that litigation conduct which prolonged or aggravated a human-rights violation could justify a somewhat higher award of just satisfaction. However, such compensation would not be equivalent to reimbursement of legal costs. [51][52][53]
The IPT had already awarded £4,000 to each Appellant and concluded that increasing those awards would not be just and appropriate. The Court found no error of law in that conclusion. [24][53]
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal but that the IPT had no jurisdiction under the existing statutory scheme to make a costs order. [18][76][20][84][86][87][88]
The compensation awards were not increased. The decision left any future IPT costs regime to primary legislation or rules made by the authorised rule-maker. [81][82][85][53]
The direct effect was that the Appellants obtained no costs order or additional compensation. No broader implication beyond the Court’s interpretation of the existing statutory framework was identified in the opinion.