The High Court has ordered that Robert Pitt recover costs for his participation before the substantive hearing of an unsuccessful application to remove inspectors investigating Independent News and Media plc. The order excludes the costs of his representation at the eight-day hearing on the application.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the costs judgment on 12 April 2021. The application to revoke the inspectors’ appointments had already been dismissed in a judgment delivered on 15 February 2021. The inspectors remain in post and will continue their investigation.
Pitt was a notice party to Leslie Buckley’s application. He argued that his participation was necessary to protect his interests and that he should recover his costs. Buckley submitted that Pitt’s involvement focused on complaints about notice and confidentiality and added nothing to the inspectors’ case on the substance of the application.
The judge said the application had a narrow, binary question: whether the inspectors’ conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The High Court was not deciding whether the allegations made in the inspection process were true. Pitt was a witness, rather than a protagonist, in that process, and the application did not concern a right or entitlement specific to him.
The court allowed Pitt to recover costs incurred up to the start of the substantive hearing. Those costs cover representation at directions hearings, preparing and filing affidavits, reviewing written submissions by Buckley and the inspectors, and preparing Pitt’s written submissions. If the parties cannot agree the amount, it is to be adjudicated by the Office of the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator.
The order does not cover Pitt’s representation at the eight-day substantive hearing. The judge said Pitt had not identified an interest that justified recovering those costs; his written submissions would have been sufficient for his participation. The ruling was not a criticism of Pitt or his lawyers, and the judge said Pitt had not acted unreasonably in the general sense.
The judgment also records a separate costs order for the inspectors, who successfully resisted the revocation application. Their recoverable costs include those of the eight-day hearing and are to be adjudicated if not agreed.