The Supreme Court Costs Office

No.31 of 2004

Q (Burkett) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
15 October 2004
Court of Appeal (Brooke, Buxton and Carnwath LJJ)

The claimant opposed a very large development in the Fulham area of London where she lived and in July 1999 warned the council that the environmental statement prepared was inadequate, but, undeterred, the local authority granted planning permission. The claimant sought a Judicial Review of that decision, but lost at first instance and in the Court of Appeal on the question of whether her application was made too late, but the House of Lords allowed her appeal and remitted the matter to the Administrative Court for a decision on the merits. At the end of a three day hearing the Judge found in favour of the council and refused the substantive claim for Judicial Review.

The claimant, who was in receipt of legal aid throughout, was awarded her costs for the appeal to the House of Lords but was ordered to pay the costs of the council for the substantive hearing.

The council sought to set off costs they were liable to pay to the claimant's solicitors against the costs awarded to them, relying on the well known Court of Appeal decision in Lockley v National Blood Transfusion Service [1992] 1 WLR 492.

The Judge allowed set off but the claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that there was lack of mutuality and that Lockley was wrongly decided.

The Court of Appeal thoroughly reviewed all of the authorities and commented that the claimant had no interest whatever in the outcome of the appeal, which was dismissed on the basis that Lockley remained good law.