[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Cockburn, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWHC 2445 (Admin) (30 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2445.html Cite as: [2011] EWHC 2445 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		30 September 2011

Mr Justice Supperstone :

Introduction

1. On 29 July 2011 I handed down judgment, [2011] EWHC 2095 (Admin). This claim failed. By a consent order dated 6 September 2011 I gave directions for the parties to make written submissions on consequential matters arising from the judgment.
2. There are two issues: (a) costs; and (b) an application by the Claimant for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
3. The Claimant made written submissions dated 9 September 2011 and the Defendant responded with written submissions dated 23 September 2011.

Costs

4. The Claimant accepts that the Defendant is entitled to the majority of his costs of the hearing. However it contends that it would be unjust for the Defendant to recover his costs on the limitation issue on which the Claimant succeeded.
5. The Defendant succeeded in establishing that the claim was out of time. However the Defendant accepted that the claim raises a matter of public importance.
6. In my view there should be a percentage reduction in the costs recovered by the Defendant. A ten per cent reduction would in my view be reasonable in all the circumstances.
7. Accordingly in my judgment the Defendant is entitled to ninety per cent of his costs of the proceedings to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Permission to appeal

8. In my judgment an appeal has no real prospect of success. I am not satisfied that because the decision may have an impact on other public sector pension schemes there is a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
9. Accordingly permission to appeal is refused.

Extension of time

10. I will extend the time limit for the Claimant to seek permission from the Court of Appeal for a period of 21 days from the date of the Court's order in accordance with CPR 52.4.

Conclusion

11. In my judgment

i) the Claimant shall pay the Defendant 90% of his costs of the proceedings to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

ii) permission to appeal is refused.

iii) time for making an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is extended until 21 days from the date of the Order.