In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

  THE KING

on the application of

IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP
Claimant

-and-
THE CROWN COURT SITTING AT SOUTHWARK
Defendant

-and-
THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY
Interested Party

On an application by the Claimant objecting to the costs order made by the Honourable Mr Justice Sweeting on 13 February 2024

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant (including his notice of objection of 12 April 2024)

ORDER by Andrew Kinnier KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

1. The Claimant shall, by 4pm on 25 September 2024, pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service summarily assessed in the sum of £2,957 inclusive of VAT.

Reasons

1. By an order dated 13 February 2024 but sealed on 11 April 2024 (“the Order”), Mr Justice Sweeting refused the Claimant permission to bring a claim for judicial review on the basis that none of the grounds was arguable and none disclosed any error of public law on the part of the Defendant. The judge declined to extend time as the application was made out of time; no good reason had been given for the delay and there was no reason to extend time. The judge also refused the Claimant’s application for interim relief as no serious issue arose and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the status quo. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs summarily assessed in the sum of £2,957 including VAT.
2. Under para. 3 of the Order, the Claimant served a notice of objection in respect of the costs order. Although the notice is not wholly clear,

the Claimant has two primary objections: (a) he did not consent to the costs order; (b) what he describes as ‘court fees’ are objectionable, unlawful and apt to restrict access to justice.

3. As to (a), the court has a broad discretion to award costs which is not dependent upon the consent of the parties. The Claimant was refused permission to bring his claim for judicial review because the grounds upon which he relied were unarguable. In the circumstances, the usual order is that the Claimant will be ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service. There is no reason to depart from the usual order in this case.
4. As to (b), the order relates to the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service. It does not relate to court fees, that is to say, the charge that is applied to allow litigants to bring their claims and to make applications. The Claimant’s reliance on public discussion of and litigation concerning court fees is therefore misplaced.
5. Having regard to all the circumstances of this case (including the Claimant’s notice of objection), the costs order was lawful, proportionate and reasonable.

Signed
Andrew Kinnier KC

The date of service of this order is calculated from the date in the section below

For completion by the Administrative Court Office

Sent / Handed to

either the Claimant, and the Defendant [and the Interested Party] or the Claimant’s, and the Defendant’s [and the Interested Party’s] solicitors

Date: 28.08.2024

Solicitors:

Ref No.