Successful Defendant's Costs In Judicial Review Claim Reduced by 15% for Partial Failure On Discreet Issue

His Honour Judge Tindal made a proportionate costs order following dismissal of a Judicial Review claim, reducing the Secretary of State’s costs by 15% where the underlying revocation decision was upheld on alternative grounds but found irrational on the primary ground advanced.

R (PRESTIGE SOCIAL CARE SERVICES LTD) V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [2025] EWHC 2860 (Admin)

In R (on the application of Prestige Social Care Services Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Administrative Court addressed whether, and if so to what extent, failure by the defendant on a discreet legal issue on an otherise successful defence of judicial review proceedings should be reflected in costs. The claimant challenged revocation of its sponsor licence. Following a one-day hearing, His Honour Judge Tindal dismissed the claim, finding the revocation lawfully sustainable under Annex C2 of the Sponsor Guidance (breach of sponsor duties) pursuant to section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981, notwithstanding that the court found the defendant’s reasoning under Annex C1 (non-genuine vacancies) irrational. On costs, the court held the defendant was entitled to costs as the successful party under CPR 44.2(2)(a), but applied a 15% reduction to reflect its failure on the Annex C1 issue, recognising that most costs were “common costs” under Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge. The court further rounded down the final figure to £18,000 (from an original schedule of £21,712.70) noting that six hours’ preparation for a one-day defendant hearing was excessive. Payment was ordered within three months.

..., the Defendant’s delay in serving a costs statement was technical and had no impact at all, as I reserved judgment. Nevertheless, I shall ‘take it into account’ under para 9.6. More importantly, under CPR 44.2(4) and (5), whilst the Defendant was the 'successful party', it did not succeed on all issues...there should be some deduction by a proportion to reflect that the Defendant did not succeed on all issues...Doing the best I can on a 'broad-brush' basis, I will make a proportional costs order making a deduction of 15%.

Citations

R (Prestwick Care) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 184 The Court confirmed that relief in judicial review can be refused under s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 where it is highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. The Court also clarified that costs can be impacted by issues relating to procedural fairness and refusal to consider representations. Simpson v MGN [2015] EWHC 126 (QB) The court held that failure to file a statement of costs on time may be taken into account when determining costs, potentially justifying a reduction in the awarded amount. Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge [2009] 1 Costs LR 155 Jackson J held that a successful party who has not succeeded on all issues may still recover common costs that were incurred on issues that overlap with those on which they were successful. R (M) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 595 The Court reaffirmed that, in settled claims, proportional costs orders may reflect the issues on which the claimant succeeded and the conduct of the parties.

Track allocation housing disrepair CPR 46.13 settlement sum costs restriction SCCO

MRO fee markup cap 25% detailed assessment personal injury Senior Courts Costs Office

Security for costs refused CPR 25.27 very high probability success excessive estimate King's Bench

IPEC scale costs transfer Patents Court PD 30 para 9.2 costs caps Court of Appeal

Costs budget variation CPR 3.15A promptness significant development unfair prejudice Chancery Division

Costs budgeting inter partes proportionality high hourly rates AI disclosure Patents Court CPR 3E

Beneficiary personal liability section 71(3) Solicitors Act 1974 indemnity costs VAT self-supply SCCO

Summary assessment indemnity costs unless order payment on account disclosure default Chancery Division

Provisional assessment set aside CPR 3.1(7) points of dispute filing duty PD 47 para 14.3 SCCO

Fixed recoverable costs police claims CPR 26.9(10)(e) intentional tort exemption

Key Points

Where the successful party has not succeeded on all issues, the court may make a proportionate costs order under CPR 44.2(6)(a), reducing the costs recoverable to reflect the issues on which it was unsuccessful.
In assessing a proportionate costs order, the court should consider what costs are referable to each issue and what costs are common to several issues; it is often reasonable for the overall winner to recover not only the costs specific to the issues won but also the common costs.
A party’s failure to file and serve a costs statement on time is a matter of conduct which the court may take into account under CPR PD 44 paragraph 9.6 when deciding what costs order to make.
When making a summary assessment of costs, the court may adjust the final amount claimed to ensure it is proportionate, even where the costs schedule is modest, by considering factors such as the time claimed for preparation.
The court may order a longer period for payment of costs where (as here) the paying party is a small business and the receiving party is a government department, to reflect their respective financial circumstances.

"[I]n assessing a proportionate costs order, the judge should consider what costs are referable to each issue and what…are common to several issues. It will often be reasonable for the overall winner to recover not only the costs specific to the issues which he has won but also the common costs."
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge [2009] 1 Costs LR 155

Key Findings In The Case

The Defendant was the successful party on the claim and therefore, in principle, entitled to its costs, but the court reduced the award to reflect the Defendant’s lack of success on one of the three main issues, namely Ground (z) on “non-genuine vacancies” .
The Defendant’s failure to file and serve its statement of costs on time was taken into account as a matter of conduct under CPR PD 44 paragraph 9.6, although the delay caused no prejudice and resulted in only a modest deduction in the eventual costs award.
The court found that the common costs related to the substantive issues were not easily divisible and, following the guidance in Multiplex, allowed recovery of common costs by the overall successful party despite partial failure on some issues.
The court made a proportionate costs order under CPR 44.2(6)(a), awarding the Defendant 85% of its claimed costs to reflect its overall success while recognising its failure on a discrete issue within Ground 3, resulting in a total award of £18,000 after rounding down from the reduced figure.
Taking into account the Claimant’s status as a small business and the Defendant’s status as a government department, the court exercised its discretion to grant an extended period for payment of the costs, directing that the Claimant pay the awarded sum within three months.

"On an overall figure of £21,712.70, following a deduction of 15%, given six hours preparing for a one-day hearing is on the high-side for a Defendant, I will also round down to an overall figure for costs (including VAT) of £18,000."

In R (on the application of Prestige Social Care Services Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2860 (Admin), the court dismissed a sponsor licence revocation challenge but reduced the defendant’s costs to reflect its failure on the Annex C1 ground.

Background

The claim for judicial review was brought by Prestige Social Care Services Ltd challenging the Secretary of State’s decision to revoke its sponsor licence under the Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors. The claim raised three substantive grounds, including whether the revocation based on “non-genuine vacancies” under Annex C1 Ground (z) of the Sponsor Guidance was irrational. The Defendant argued revocation was justified under both Annex C1 Ground (z) and, alternatively, under Annex C2 Grounds (a) and (b) (breach of sponsor duties), citing high staff turnover, a failed visa application, and recruitment of a worker unable to drive for a driving-required role.

Following a one-day hearing on 23rd September 2025, His Honour Judge Tindal (sitting as a Judge of the High Court in the Administrative Court, Birmingham) dismissed the claim. Whilst the court found the Defendant’s reasoning under Annex C1 irrational, it held the decision to revoke was nevertheless lawfully sustainable under Annex C2 Grounds (a) and (b) (breach of sponsor duties) pursuant to section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981. The court then directed written submissions on costs and permission to appeal.

Costs Issues Before the Court

The court was required to determine three costs questions following dismissal of the claim: first, whether the Defendant as successful party was entitled to its costs; second, whether any reduction should apply given the Defendant’s failure on the Annex C1 issue despite succeeding overall; and third, whether the Defendant’s late service of its costs schedule warranted any penalty. The court also needed to fix the quantum and payment terms.

The Parties’ Positions

The Defendant sought its costs as the successful party, submitting a schedule totalling £21,712.70. It relied on the general rule under CPR 44.2(2)(a) that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs.

The Claimant did not dispute that the Defendant was the successful party but contended a costs reduction was warranted on two bases.

- - First, the Defendant had not succeeded on all issues – specifically, the court found the Annex C1 reasoning irrational. The Claimant relied on CPR 44.2(4)(b) which permits the court to consider whether a party succeeded on part of its case even if not wholly successful.
  - Second, the Claimant pointed to the Defendant’s delay in filing and serving the costs statement, submitting this should be taken into account under CPR PD 44 paragraph 9.6 and Simpson v MGN [2015] EWHC 126 (QB). Notably, the Claimant did not propose a specific percentage reduction.

The Court’s Decision

His Honour Judge Tindal accepted the Defendant was the successful party as the claim had been dismissed, triggering the general rule under CPR 44.2(2)(a). However, applying CPR 44.2(4) and (5), the court considered the Defendant had not succeeded on all issues.

Impact of Late Costs Schedule

On the late costs schedule, the court acknowledged that under CPR PD 44 para 9.6 and Simpson v MGN, late service may be taken into account and costs reduced. However, the court found the Defendant’s delay was “technical and had no impact at all” as judgment had been reserved. Nevertheless, the court stated it would “take it into account” under para 9.6, though this appeared to be absorbed into the overall assessment rather than driving any specific reduction.

The Proportionate Costs Reduction

The court then turned to the more significant issue: whether the Defendant’s partial failure on issues warranted a costs reduction. The court cited Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge [2009] 1 Costs LR 155, where Jackson J (as he then was) held at paragraph 71(viii):

“In assessing a proportionate costs order, the judge should consider what costs are referable to each issue and what costs are common to several issues. It will often be reasonable for the overall winner to recover not only the costs specific to the issues which he has won but also the common costs.”

Applying this principle, the court noted the Defendant’s schedule was modest at £21,712.70 (less than a quarter of the Claimant’s schedule) and, whilst not broken down by issue, “most of the costs expended are likely to have been common costs.” Nevertheless, the court held “there should be some deduction by a proportion to reflect that the Defendant did not succeed on all issues.“

The court observed that neither party had suggested a specific percentage reduction. Taking a “broad-brush” approach, the court reasoned that although the Defendant succeeded overall, it did not prevail on the Annex C1 non-genuine-vacancy issue (Ground (z)), even though it succeeded on alternative grounds under Annex C2 and on the case overall. The court therefore held “the appropriate reduction should be modest” and applied a 15% deduction to reflect this partial failure.

Further “Rounding Down” Adjustment

The court then made an additional observation, noting that “six hours preparing for a one-day hearing is on the high-side for a Defendant.” Following the 15% deduction to reflect partial success, the court rounded the resulting figure down to £18,000 inclusive of VAT as a proportionate final sum, rather than mechanically calculating 85% of £21,712.70 (which would have been £18,455.80).

Payment Terms and Procedural Matters

The court ordered the Claimant to pay £18,000 within three months, reflecting that the Claimant was a small business whilst the Defendant was a Government department. The court allowed the Claimant seven days to apply to vary either the costs order or the payment timetable, failing which the order would stand. The court also extended the time for any appeal application accordingly.

Permission to appeal was refused, as the grounds raised were either fact-specific or not directed at the determinative issues in the case.

Implications for Practice

This decision provides practical guidance on several costs principles in judicial review proceedings:

- - Proportionate costs orders under CPR 44.2 and section 31(2A): Even where a claim is dismissed and the defendant is clearly the successful party – indeed, even where relief is refused under section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 because the outcome would have been substantially the same without the error – the court will examine whether that party failed on discrete issues. Where such failure is established, a modest percentage reduction may be appropriate to reflect the resources expended on an issue the successful party lost.
  - The common costs principle: Courts recognise that in multi-ground judicial review claims, most costs are “common costs” that would have been incurred regardless of which ground ultimately succeeded. This militates against substantial reductions where the successful party’s overall case prevailed. Here, a 15% reduction was deemed “modest” and appropriate where common costs predominated and the successful party would have won on alternative grounds in any event.
  - Late costs schedules: Technical procedural failures in serving costs schedules will be noted under CPR PD 44 para 9.6 but may have limited practical impact where they caused no delay to the court’s decision-making process. Courts retain discretion to “take into account” such failures without imposing punitive reductions, particularly where judgment has been reserved.
  - Broad-brush discretion: Courts will exercise broad-brush discretion based on their assessment of the relative success on different issues, the nature of the failure, and whether the successful party would have prevailed in any event. The court is not bound to apply precise mathematical formulae but may round to an appropriate figure reflecting overall proportionality.

For practitioners, the case reinforces that winning overall does not guarantee full costs recovery. Where multiple grounds are advanced and one fails – even if that failure does not affect the ultimate outcome under section 31(2A) – defendants should expect modest reductions to reflect the wasted costs on that issue.

Issues Based And Proportional Costs Orders: When Should They Be Made?

Partial Success, Conduct, Offers And Alleged Exaggeration

CPR 44.2 And The Courts’ Discretion As To Costs

Costs In Withdrawn Judicial Review Claims

Failure To File And Serve An N260 Statement Of Costs

Issues-Based Costs Orders And The Powers Of A Trial Judge Under CPR Part 36

Specialist costs services across the UK

TMC Legal provides expert costs drafting, negotiaton and costs budgeting services together with representation in detailed assessment hearings. Our experienced costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen act nationwide. Contact us today.