Mohammed Bashir v The London Borough of Newham
Decision date: 24 October 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 303 (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
The Upper Tribunal considered costs following its substantive decision cancelling Newham’s 'nil' certificate and issuing a CAAD for 8,214 sqm of mixed-use development. Newham sought most of its costs from 16 November 2023 or, alternatively, an issues-based award; the Tribunal rejected those broad claims. It held that Mr Bashir was the overall successful party and made a limited issues-based award requiring him to pay 20% of the costs of Dr Miele’s heritage evidence, as those costs were demonstrably and isolably wasted by late non‑communication of a change in Mr Bashir’s case.
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: high
The Tribunal’s ratio is that in CAAD proceedings the claimant will normally be treated as the successful party for costs where the claimant secures a substantive CAAD more favourable than the authority’s prior position, and that an issues‑based costs order is exceptional: it should be made only where the issue is discrete, caused additional costs, and those additional costs can be reasonably isolated.
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 warns against readily making issue‑based costs orders in compensation/CAAD contexts because claimants face procedural and resource disadvantages and adverse costs consequences may chill compensation claims; it also expresses a practical preference, where possible, for quantifying and allocating a proportion of an expert’s costs rather than engaging in protracted assessment.