Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

1. These are the court’s decisions upon the points that have arisen consequential upon our judgments delivered on 5 July 2018. We give short reasons on each point. (A) Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court

2. This is refused. There is no point of law arising out of the judgments, let alone any point of law of public importance. Our decision turned upon our respectful disagreement with the learned judge as to the application of settled principles of law to the undisputed facts of this case. (B) Costs in the High Court

3. There is no dispute about the costs of the Third Appellant. These are to be paid by the Respondent, subject to assessment and subject to the dispute as to the basis of assessment – as to which, see below.

4. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the First and Second Appellants and of the Respondent. We do not consider that these are readily amenable to an “issues based” costs order, broadly for the reasons advanced by these appellants. They won on the important issues, even if they resiled from parts of the case they were making as to those issues in the course of the proceedings below. They should have all their costs, subject to assessment. (C) Basis of Assessment

5. The Appellants ask for assessment on the indemnity basis. The Respondent resists this.

6. Whatever may have been the egregious conduct of DCS Cook, we do not consider that the Respondent’s conduct of the litigation warrants an order for assessment on the indemnity basis, broadly for the reasons advanced by the Respondent.

7. The costs will be assessed on the standard basis. (D) Payment on account of Costs

8. We understand that the payment on account of the Third Appellant’s costs in the sum of £175,000 is agreed. The Third Appellant was/is in receipt of legal aid.

9. The First and Second Appellants submit that the payments proposed by the Respondent, i.e. £87,500 in respect of the costs of each of them (£175,000 in total), are derisory in comparison with the costs budget. We note that the budget envisaged a rather longer trial than in fact occurred.

10. We consider, balancing the various considerations, that the total payment on account to the First and Second Appellants should be £225,000, divided equally between each appellant. (E) Interim payment of Damages

11. We decline to make any order in this respect. Such matters are not appropriate for decision in this court, absent an anterior High Court decision from which an appeal is brought. Further, it would be quite wrong to resolve such a matter, involving significant issues of fact and law, on the basis of an unheralded application only ventilated after judgment and on the basis of summary submissions on paper. (F) Order

12. The sealed order of the court will be issued at the same time as these short written reasons.