Perhaps the most referred to authority on the recoverability of costs incurred during an inquest in later civil proceedings. Toby Moreton of TMC was instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen in the case and appeared before Chief Master Hurst on the initial assessment of costs and the remitted hearing. Andrew Post of Hailsham Chambers was instructed on the Claimants’ successful appeal to the High Court.
ROACH & ORS v HOME OFFICE [2009] EWHC 312 (QB)
” Costs of attendance at an inquest are not incapable of being recoverable as costs incidental to subsequent civil proceedings. Nor does this give rise to any unprincipled approach – because the relevant principles, as conveniently set out in Gibson, are available to be applied by Costs Judges in a way appropriate to the circumstances of each case. It may also be remembered that Clarke J in fact disallowed some of the costs relating to the inquest claimed as costs incidental to the civil proceedings (the overall approach illustrating just how important the factor of relevance is). Mr Westgate in fact was, I think entitled to observe – as he did – that it was open in the instant case to the Home Office likewise to seek to avoid or minimise any potential liability for such costs here by admitting liability prior to the inquest. He and Mr Post were also entitled to observe that the inquests here in practice seem to have had the effect of causing the civil proceedings thereafter relatively speedily (and thereby in a way saving of some costs) to be compromised.”
[Roach, 48]
The decision firmly establishes that the costs of attendance at and participation in inquests may, subject to relevance and the usual principles of reasonableness and proportionality, be recoverable in civil proceedings.
Click here to see how these principles have been put into practice
At the original assessment of costs Master Hurst in Roach allowed only half the costs of participation in the inquest on the basis that involvement had been for two equal purposes i.e. helping the coroner and gathering evidence for the civil claim.
The Home Office appealed the decision arguing that a series of decisions over the last 60 years had established a binding rule that costs incurred in a prior proceeding (i.e. an inquest) can never be recovered as part of a subsequent civil claim.
Therefore, they contended, Costs Judges had no jurisdiction to allow inquest costs either in part or in full. It was argued that the decision in the Bowbelle, which had concluded otherwise, had been decided per incuriam.
The Claimant cross appealed the decision to divide the inquest costs equally, or indeed at all, on grounds that it was contrary to practice, authority and principle.
In rejecting the Home Office’s argument and allowing the Claimant’s Appeal Davis J (as he then was) found, inter alia, that:
“I am not bound by authority to accept the proposition for which Mr Morgan [counsel for the Home Office] argued; and I do not think the general principle for which he argued can be extracted from the cases. Since I can see no other convincing rationale for such a proposition, I can see no other basis for restricting the operation of the wide language of section 51 itself and the extent of the court’s jurisdiction.”
Retrospective CFAs and Success Fees