The High Court ordered the respondents to pay 50% of M.C.’s costs in a judicial review concerning her discharge from the Central Mental Hospital. Mr Justice Eagar made the costs order on 25 July 2016, after a separate judgment in the case on 20 June 2016.
The dispute concerned the respondent’s statutory obligations under section 13(A) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, as amended. The judgment says M.C.’s solicitors sought a conditional discharge and succeeded. They later persuaded the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board, the notice party, to amend its conditions. The Board granted M.C. an unconditional discharge in December 2014, after the judicial review proceedings had begun.
At the costs hearing, counsel for the respondent sought costs, arguing that costs normally follow the event and that the applicant had obtained an unconditional discharge. Counsel said the respondent and notice party had corresponded with the applicant’s solicitors on the understanding that the case would be withdrawn. The notice party did not seek costs. M.C.’s counsel argued that the statutory obligations had not previously been considered or litigated and that the court should award her costs.
The court said a dispute between the respondent and the notice party had meant the respondent did not make arrangements for compliance with the conditional discharge, supervision, or return to the designated centre in the event of a material breach. It said the proceedings concerned that dispute. The judgment records that the court found in favour of the respondents in their dispute with the notice party.
Mr Justice Eagar held that the case fell within exceptions to the usual rule that costs follow the event. He said the proceedings raised important public law issues, although they had been brought to advance M.C.’s private interests, and took account of the fact that the respondent’s obligations under section 13(A) had not previously been litigated. He distinguished a Supreme Court case cited by the respondent as involving different District and Circuit Court issues. The court ordered the respondents to pay half of the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings; the judgment does not award her full costs.