Hamish G Johnston & Ors v TAG Farnborough Airport Limited
Decision date: 6 November 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 490 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned applications under rule 10 to limit future recoverable costs in two linked Land Compensation Act injurious-affection references against TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd. The Tribunal refused a protective costs order in the Dandy test case but, in the larger Johnston group, capped recoverable claimant base costs at £4,000 per property to the conclusion of the preliminary issues and ordered a reciprocal cap on respondent recovery; CFA uplift was excluded from the reciprocal cap. Costs of the joint application were apportioned between the parties (Johnston claimants paid by respondent; Dandy claimants to pay respondent).
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The Tribunal applied its discretionary power under rule 10 to limit future recoverable costs by assessing the size and nature of the dispute, the parties’ funding arrangements and disparities in resources; lack of evidence of individual claimants’ means weighed against full immunity, ATE cover and proportionality supported refusal of a broad protective order in Dandy, and reciprocity need not extend to CFA uplifts where excluding uplift preserves access to justice.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment contains observations that the timing of a costs-cap application matters (earlier caps may be more effective), that detailed assessment can be an acceptable alternative to speculative up-front caps when ATE protection exists, and that the Tribunal will consider risks of disproportionate conduct and wasted expenditure when deciding on cost controls.