Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Judicial Review Costs Order

    Uploaded by

    FDAunion
    This was a judicial review claim regarding the definition of 'bullying' in the Ministerial Code. The claim was dismissed but the claimant succeeded in establishing parts of the Code were justiciable. Considering the mixed success, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Judicial Review Costs Order

    Uploaded by

    FDAunion
    1K views2 pages
    This was a judicial review claim regarding the definition of 'bullying' in the Ministerial Code. The claim was dismissed but the claimant succeeded in establishing parts of the Code were justiciable. Considering the mixed success, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

    Original Description:

    Costs order in the FDA's judicial review on the ministerial code

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This was a judicial review claim regarding the definition of 'bullying' in the Ministerial Code. The claim was dismissed but the claimant succeeded in establishing parts of the Code were justiciable. Considering the mixed success, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Judicial Review Costs Order

    Uploaded by

    FDAunion
    This was a judicial review claim regarding the definition of 'bullying' in the Ministerial Code. The claim was dismissed but the claimant succeeded in establishing parts of the Code were justiciable. Considering the mixed success, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COI618/2021

    QUEEN’S BENCH DlVISION


    DIVISIONAL COURT
    BEFORE THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE LEWIS AND THE HONOURABLE
    MRS JUSTICE STEYN DBE

    BETWEEN:

    THE QUEEN

    (on the Application of FDA)


    ‘ Claimant

    -and-

    THE PRIME MINISTER

    ORDER

    UPON consideration of the claimant’s and the defendant’s application for costs

    It is ORDERED:

    1. Each of the Claimant’s and the Defendant's application for costs is refused.
    2. There be no order for costs in relation to the claim forjudicial review.

    Reasons
    1. This was a claim brought by way ofjudicial review for a declaration that the
    defendant had misdirected himself as to the meaning of the word "bullying” in
    paragraph 1.2 of the Ministerial Code. That claim was dismissed. Each of the
    parties applies for an order that the other party pays the costs incurred by them.
    2
    2. Applying CPR 44.2, the successful party for the purposes of CPR 44.2(2)(a) is
    the defendant as the Court found that the defendant had not misdirected himself
    in the way alleged and the claim was dismissed. However, it is important to have
    regard to the factors in CPR 44.2(4) especially, on the facts of this case, CPR
    44.2(4)(b) and whether the claimant has succeeded on part of its claim. The
    claimant did succeed in establishing that the relevant part of the Ministerial Code
    was justiciable and that conduct which was offensive or intimidating could amount
    to bullying even where the person concerned was unaware of, or did not intend to
    cause, harm or offence. In all the circumstances, the issues upon which the
    claimant succeeded are broadly equivalent to the success obtained by the
    defendant. In all the circumstances, the fair, just and proportionate order is that
    each party bears its own costs. The reference to the correspondence reiied upon
    by the slaimant does not alter that view. Nor does the conduct complained of by
    the claimant affect matters as that did, not result in any increased costs.

    Dated 21 December 2021

    BY THE COURT

    You might also like