Simon is Successful in Overturning a Judge’s Decision in the High Court Ordering a Complainant to Pay the Defendant’s Costs in s.82 Proceedings Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990
 |
| [relatedPosts title=”Related Posts”] |
In Dr Catherine Bentley-Thomas v Winkfield Parish Council [2013] EWHC (Admin), the complainant (Dr Bentley-Thomas) had laid an information in Reading Magistrates’ Court in accordance with s.82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, alleging that the defendant (Winkfield) had caused a statutory noise nuisance.
The information was dismissed by District Judge Vickers having heard evidence from a number of residents and experts. Following the dismissal the Judge ordered the complainant to pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of £18,008.10 pursuant to s.19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, on the grounds that the proceedings had been unnecessary and improper.
The complainant appealed by way of case stated against the decision on the grounds that the Judge was wrong to have ordered the complainant to pay the costs of the defendant. The complainant asserted that the correct approach was to make an order that the defendant’s costs be paid out of central funds in accordance with s.16 of the 1985 Act.
Fulford J (with whom Goldring LJ agreed) held that the Judge was wrong, as a matter of law and fact, to make an order for costs against the complainant pursuant to s.19 of the 1985 Act, following her decision to bring proceedings in accordance with s.82 of the 1990 Act.
Fulford J stated that Dr Bentley-Thomas had conducted her case properly throughout the proceedings. The case brought by the complainant could not be described as hopeless, or that it was improper for her to bring the case at all. The Judge was also wrong to have concluded that the case had no realistic chance of success.
It was held that the complainant had produced a significant quantity of evidence to demonstrate that excessive noise was emanating from the defendant’s premises and it was arguable that it amounted to a statutory nuisance.
The Court made an order quashing the decision of the Judge and requiring the defendant to pay the complainant’s costs of the appeal.
Simon was instructed by Dr Bentley-Thomas under the Direct Public Access Scheme.
