Source: http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/04/not-a-good-idea/
Timestamp: 2014-07-29 20:51:30
Document Index: 258482206

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ']

Not a Good Idea - Nearly Legal
| Published 23/04/2014
One to be filed under ‘Do not do this, ever’.
R (Grimshaw) v LB Southwark [2013] EWHC 4504 (Admin) [Not on Bailii, I've seen a transcript]
This started out well enough, as a judicial review claim of Southwark’s decision to terminate temporary accommodation. Soon after issue and interim relief had been granted, Southwark entered into discussions and, on 10 December 2012, an offer of accommodation was made to and accepted by the Claimant. Thus, one would have thought, the claim was effectively settled and its purpose fulfilled.
Nobody told the Admin Court. On 19 December 2012, the claim was given permission on the papers, with no update on the situation having been provided.
The Claimant’s solicitors, Gans & Co, then appear to have had a bit of a brainwave. Instead of telling the Court that the claim was disposed of, on:
10 January 2013 they gave notice on the claimant’s behalf that the claimant intended to make a claim for damages. This claim was said to arise in circumstances where the claimant had apparently been over paid housing benefits while housed in temporary accommodation which, following the defendant’s decision to terminate her temporary accommodation, she was now having to pay back. The suggestion, apparently, was that she had a claim for damages for having to repay the housing benefits which she had received in excess of the amounts to which she was entitled.
On 26 April, the Court order that the matter be listed for disposal unless the Claimant provided a consent order or notice of withdrawal in 14 days. The Court was still none the wiser.
Gans & Co sent a draft consent order to Southwark to withdraw the claim, then promptly withdrew that offer and maintained that the claim for damages continued. And so in July 2013, the claim was heard for disposal. Southwark applied for a wasted costs order against Gans & Co.
The purported damages claim got short shrift.
That was a manifestly spurious claim to attempt to argue within these judicial review proceedings for two reasons. In the first place it was a different claim from the original claim for judicial review for which permission to proceed had been given; and secondly the claim only has to be stated for it to be apparent that it had no realistic prospect of success.
And so to the wasted costs application. Counsel for Gans & Co, instructed the previous evening, did his best, arguing that
in substance, that the claimant was not prepared to consent to her claim for judicial review being withdrawn and wished to pursue the housing benefit claim, and his instructing solicitors went along with that.
That did not go down well:
That answer is, I am bound to say, a wholly inadequate one for Gans & Co to put forward. In the first place, and particularly when acting for a legally aided client, a solicitor has a duty to the legal aid fund and the court not to maintain spurious litigation simply because the client wishes that to be done. They should have, if necessary, ceased to act and certainly reported the matter to the legal aid authorities rather than continued in pursuit of an obviously hopeless claim. Secondly, that answer does not explain the failure of Gans & Co to answer correspondence or to engage in any meaningful discussion with the defendant’s solicitors over the period of months which have elapsed since 10 January when the issue of housing benefit was first raised, or certainly since the consent order was sent in draft and then withdrawn in May.
Since then, Gans & Co have failed to take any steps either to withdraw the claim or, if necessary, remove themselves from acting on the claimant’s behalf, did not inform the court of the position and did not respond to correspondence from the defendant until, I am told, Monday of this week when finally instructions were obtained and it was indicated on the claimant’s behalf that the claim would no longer be pursued.
The Court was satisfied that the three requirements for a wasted costs order had been met.
firstly that the legal representative has acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently – and for the reasons given I am quite satisfied that that requirement is met in this case. Secondly, that such conduct caused the applicant for a wasted costs order to incur unnecessary costs; as I have already explained that happened in this case. Third, that it is in all of the circumstances just to order the legal representative to compensate the applicant for the whole or part of the relevant costs.
In my view it is entirely just that Gans & Co should pay costs here. They have wasted not only time spent by the defendant’s solicitors and counsel, but the time of the court, including the hearing today, which would have been wholly unnecessary if they had acted reasonably and professionally in conducting this litigation. I consider that the costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis to mark the unreasonable nature of the conduct of Gans & Co.
Attempts to argue over specific costs and rates were batted away and a wasted costs order of £6,049.63 made.
Ouch. The lesson being that this is the kind of bright idea it is better not to have, or to explain to the client that it is not a bright idea at all.
Posted in FLW case note, Homeless, Housing law - All and tagged costs, judicial-review, wasted costs. RSS feed for this post and comments.
About Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner in the Housing and Public Law team at Anthony Gold Solicitors in South London.
You can find him on Linkedin and on Twitter. Known as NL round these parts, and still is Nearly Legal on Google + View all posts by →
« Oh Mr Ghopee. • Ignoring the Court of Appeal? »	3 Comments
Posted 23/04/2014 at 3:25 pm | link to comment
I suspect this is the tip of an iceberg, and I commend the Council for having the tenacity to pursue a wasted costs order. I’m sure there are many similar cases where the Council just writes it off.
The conduct of Gans & Co in pursuing such an absurd claim was disgraceful, and the fact that it was pursued using public funding simply adds insult to injury. Thank you for reporting the case and I shall certainly be bringing the case to the attention of the relevant legal aid authority in the (probably vain) hope that some form of sanction will be applied.
Reply	Giles Peaker
Posted 23/04/2014 at 3:33 pm | link to comment
You may suspect away, but it isn’t the tip of the iceberg. Or we would be reporting lots more cases like this one. On the whole, it is better to have evidence for your prejudices, or you just look, well, prejudiced.
Posted 23/04/2014 at 7:09 pm | link to comment
Or a member of UKIP. And no-one wants to look like one of those. Bad teeth, the lot of them.
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Search for:
Categories	Adverse possession (16)
Allocation (71)
ASB (70)
Assured Shorthold tenancy (159)
assured-tenancy (165)
Disrepair (79)
Housing law – All (1303)
Leasehold and shared ownership (181)
Mortgage possession (62)
Possession (350)
secure-tenancy (222)
Various (non-housing) (439)
Recent CommentsDarrel on Missing tenants and missing sentences: Council tax and periodic tenanciesjayson carmichael on Bedrooms, tribunals and article 14jayson carmichael on Bedrooms, tribunals and article 14Veera Thakral on Actual occupation (part time)Giles Peaker on Make do and mend: Undoing Superstrike on depositsSpencer v Taylor update – Supreme Court refuse leave to appeal | Coventry View on Spencer v Taylor – section 21 newsMichael Watney on Shorthold tenancies and council tax liabilityGiles Peaker on Shorthold tenancies and council tax liabilityWilliam Noad on Make do and mend: Undoing Superstrike on depositsSection 21 update - Spencer v Taylor on The Permissive NoticeVisits in 2014	290263
Disclaimer	The purpose of this blog is to provide information and discussion. Nothing on this blog should be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice from a qualified solicitor regarding any actual legal issue or dispute. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice or perceived as creating a barrister/solicitor-client relationship. Please note that we cannot give advice on individual’s situations or problems on this blog.
Subscribe in a newsreader	Subscribe here
Subscribe to new posts by email	Enter your email address:You will receive a confirmation email, which you will need to click through. Check your spam folder...
Find a legal aid housing advisor	Legal aid eligibility check & advisor finder
Copyright	Nearly Legal by various authors is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.Based on a work at nearlylegal.co.uk.
Delighted to find out today that both paralegals on my team passed their LPCs with distinctions. Traineeships start Sept. #separationanxiety @nearlylegal
Brixton advice centre housing paralegal job. nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/07/j… @nearlylegal
Job Ads wp.me/p4NMC-2Qn @nearlylegal
After receiving an email earlier, I am determined to use "dire implications" in all pre-action correspondence. @nearlylegal
I am on a busy train. No-one is sitting next to me. Am both pleased and vaguely humiliated. @nearlylegal
Public Sector Equality duty 'adds nothing' to s.189 homeless vulnerability enquiries (at least in this case). bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/… @nearlylegal
Homeless & vulnerable though physical and mental health problems? Not priority need if you have people to help you. cornerstonebarristers.com/case/disabled-… @nearlylegal
Aha. it is law student equity essay time of year. Incoming search to the blog: "ESSAY ON THE decision jones v kernott (2011)" Latest decisions from Administrative CourtVillota v 2nd Section of the National High Court of Madrid, Spain [2014] EWHC 2623 (Admin) (29 July 2014)Carter, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2603 (Admin) (29 July 2014)Ashraf v General Dental Council [2014] EWHC 2618 (Admin) (29 July 2014)Wang, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2619 (Admin) (29 July 2014)Eva, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2546 (Admin) (18 June 2014)Krusinina v Prosecutors General Office of the Republic of Latvia [2014] EWHC 2509 (Admin) (23 July 2014)Professional Standards Authority for Health And Social Care v General Pharmaceutical Council & Anor [2014] EWHC 2521 (Admin) (23 July 2014)Smith, R (on the application of) v Department of Work and Pensions [2014] EWHC 2590 (Admin) (19 May 2014) Latest decisions from Court of Appeal (Civil)Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Copeland [2014] EWCA Civ 1014 (22 July 2014)Lim (An Infant) v Walia [2014] EWCA Civ 1076 (29 July 2014)Kanu v The London Borough of Southwark [2014] EWCA Civ 1085 (29 July 2014)H, Re [2014] EWCA Civ 1101 (29 July 2014)Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 1084 (29 July 2014)Sloan v The Governors of Rastrick High School [2014] EWCA Civ 1063 (29 July 2014)PJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1011 (18 July 2014)O, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 990 (17 July 2014) Latest decisions from Supreme CourtSturnham, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales & Anor (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 47 (3 July 2013)Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46 (3 July 2013)Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor (No 2) [2014] UKSC 46 (23 July 2014)