Adverse costs orders

Am I dreaming again or was there a decision this year in a CPAG brought case before the UT where CPAG made an application for an adverse costs order?

I have searched but “costs” doesn’t help very much even when I include “adverse” and I can’t remember the context of the case.

TIA & HNY.

I’m not sure what you are thinking of specifically but in general the position is that the UT has no ability at all to make any order relating to costs on an appeal from the FtT (SEC) so any application for any sort of costs order would be futile - see rule 10(2) UT Rules.

The UT can and does make costs orders in JR proceedings which CPAG are often involved in. So costs were awarded in the Smith case for example. The leading case on the approach to costs in these cases is R (MM and DM) v SSWP (Costs) [2015] UKUT 566 (AAC).

In terms of an “adverse” costs order, I’m not sure what you mean by this exactly. It is possible for the UT to make a “wasted costs order” which is usually used in reference to an order that a legal representative meet some of the costs of proceedings themselves due to their own poor conduct of the case. I am not aware of any case where a wasted costs order has been made in the AAC although they get used in other chambers, particularly immigration.

Happy New Year.