City council wins costs battle over withdrawn planning judicial review claim

The High Court has ruled that a resident who withdrew a judicial review claim against Westminster City Council must pay its costs, including those incurred prior to the grant of permission.

Supperstone J also said in his judgment in R (Spragge) v Westminster City Council (on the Francis Taylor Building website) that a defendant in a judicial review may recover the costs of officer time incurred defending the claim.

Charles and Louise Spragge had brought the case over Westminster’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to their next door neighbour’s home, which they said would cause a loss of light.

But they later discontinued the action and the judge noted that unless a court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant has incurred until then.

Mr Spragge argued that changed circumstances and unreasonable conduct by Westminster should result in the council being not only not entitled to their costs but also to be liable for his.

He said he dropped the action when his neighbour submitted a fresh application which omitted the features he found objectionable.

But the judge said this was “irrelevant to the existence of the planning permission”.

He also did not accept that Westminster unreasonably refused to engage in settlement talks, citing a letter that showed it was willing to meet the Spragges.

Supperstone J said though that the costs of £11,698.30 sought by Westminster were “on the high side” and after hearing a series of submissions set these at £6,500.