The High Court ruled that the District Court had no jurisdiction to award costs to a man who successfully appealed the refusal of a firearms certificate.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 1 May 2013 in a case stated by the District Court. The applicant had appealed successfully against the respondent’s refusal to grant him a certificate under section 15A of the Firearms Act 1925, as amended. He then sought the costs of that appeal, raising the question of whether the District Court could make such an award.
The High Court considered whether the appeal was “civil proceedings” for the purposes of Order 51, rule 1 of the District Court Rules 1997. That rule gives the District Court discretion over costs in civil proceedings, but the firearms appeal provision did not itself address costs.
Mr Justice Peart said the District Court is a court of local and limited jurisdiction, and its powers must come from legislation or court rules. He examined the statutory distinction between civil cases, criminal cases and the granting of certificates, as well as the way those categories were treated in successive District Court rules. In his view, the costs rule applied to civil proceedings and did not extend to the firearms certificate appeal.
The judge also distinguished the applicant’s reliance on *Inspector of Taxes v Arida*, which concerned a Circuit Court rule referring to costs in “any proceedings”. He said that wording was broader than the District Court rule’s reference to civil proceedings.
The High Court answered “No” to the first two questions put in the case stated. It said questions three and four did not need to be answered. The judgment therefore decided the District Court’s jurisdiction to award costs in this appeal; it did not revisit the applicant’s successful appeal against the refusal of the certificate.