Applicant objecting to taxation of costs – President of Lands Tribunal deciding objection out of time – Refusal to extend time – Whether time for objection had expired – Whether president’s decision irrational – R 52(5) of Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 – Application dismissed
Jafton Properties Ltd (the applicant) was awarded one-quarter of its costs following a hearing at the Lands Tribunal in which it achieved “limited success”. In April 1998 cost were taxed at a costs hearing before a registrar. A number of disputes followed, concluding with a letter from the registrar that was received by the applicant in July 1998.
The applicant first put forward its major objections to the taxation later that month. The registrar decided, in a decision upheld by the president of the Lands Tribunal, that the applicant’s challenge was out of time under r 52 of the Lands Tribunal Rules 1996. That rule provides: “a party dissatisfied with a taxation of costs… may, within 7 days of the taxation, serve… on the registrar written objection”. It was further decided that it was not appropriate to extend time under r 35.
The applicant sought to challenge the president’s decision on the ground that its objection was not out of time, or, if it was, that an extension of time should have been granted. On the latter point, it was submitted that: (i) r 52(5) had been complied with as the taxation was completed, not in April 1998, but in July; and (ii) the president’s refusal of a time extension and his reasons for it were irrational or unfair.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The principal question was whether there was, in April 1998, a “taxation of costs” within the meaning of r 52(5). It was not helpful to express the question in terms of whether the taxation was “completed” or “concluded” on that date. On the evidence, there was no doubt that in April 1998 the registrar taxed the applicant’s bill of costs for the substantive proceedings, and the costs of the taxation itself, in accordance with the tribunal’s order. Taxation was carried out on the standard basis and ended with an assessment of the relevant figures. The applicant’s objections were considerably out of time. They should have been submitted no later than seven days after the April hearing.
It could not be said that the president’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. While his reasons for refusing the extension were succinct, there was no doubt that he had considered the applicant’s representations.
John Taylor QC and Richard Wald (instructed by Gouldens) appeared for the applicant; David Mole QC (instructed by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue) appeared for the valuation officer.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
