Mullan v Thames Valley Police, Court of Appeal - Supreme Court Cost Office, May 06, 2009, [2009] EWHC 90140 (Costs)

Resolution Date:May 06, 2009
Issuing Organization:Supreme Court Cost Office
Actores:Mullan v Thames Valley Police
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 90140 (Costs)Case No: 7EC00188SUPREME COURT COSTS OFFICESt Dunstans HouseCliffords InnFetter LaneEC4E 1DQDate: Wednesday, 6th May 2009Before:MASTER GORDON-SAKER- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B E T W E E N:JASON MULLANandCHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE THAMES VALLEY POLICE- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Transcript from a recording by UbiqusCliffords Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1LDTel: 020 7269 0370- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JUDGMENTMASTER GORDON-SAKER:1. The claimant had the misfortune to be arrested by the police while he was taking part in a demonstration against the building of an animal research laboratory in Oxford. He was taken into custody and, as a result of what happened, he decided to pursue a claim against the police for wrongful arrest, assault and false imprisonment.2. He consulted solicitors in February 2006 and eventually proceedings were issued against the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and those proceedings eventually resulted in a Part 36 offer of £7,500 together with costs which offer was accepted by the claimant in July 2008.3. This matter now comes before me for the detailed assessment of the claimant's costs. The first objection raised by the defendant is that the claimant has included in his bill the costs of pursuing a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and thereafter of pursuing an appeal from that decision. 4. The defendant submits that the costs so incurred cannot be costs of and incidental to the civil claim in respect of which the claimant is entitled to his costs. In advancing that argument today Mr Abraham, who appears on behalf of the defendant, makes three concessions. 5. First, he accepts in principle that costs incurred before the issue of the proceedings may be recoverable. Second, he concedes that reasonable and proportionate costs of obtaining evidence and information for a civil claim are recoverable. Third, he indicates that he is not pursuing the jurisdictional argument that this Court cannot allow costs incurred in relation to proceedings before another body if those costs fall within the second concession that he made.6. The principal argument made on behalf of the defendant, as I understand it, is that the complaint or a complaint to the IPCC is not an evidence gathering exercise. The purpose of such a complaint is to obtain a finding of misconduct which may then lead to disciplinary proceedings against the officers involved and that because that is really the only purpose the costs of that exercise cannot be costs of and incidental to the costs of subsequent civil proceedings.7. Mr Abraham referred to Department of Health and Social Security v Envoy Farmers Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 1018 QBD in which a Master in the Queen's Bench Division had referred the question of whether the defendant was liable to pay national insurance contributions for determination by the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 97 subsection 2 of the National Insurance Act 1965. The Secretary of State after an enquiry held that the defendant was not liable. The Master then dismissed the action with...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL