Costs ruling in immigration detention case

Introduction

The High Court has upheld a costs order against Steven Mlundira, the appellant in a judicial review case concerning immigration detention, clarifying procedural expectations for litigants in person. The case, presided over by Mrs Justice Hill, involved an appeal against an order made by Costs Judge Brown in February 2022, which required Mlundira to pay 80% of the respondent's costs for two interim applications.

Background

The appellant, Steven Mlundira, had initially challenged his immigration detention and related notices in judicial review proceedings commenced in May 2020. The proceedings were resolved in his favour in October 2021, with the Secretary of State ordered to pay his reasonable costs. However, disputes arose over the detailed assessment of these costs, leading to the contested order by Costs Judge Brown.

The Appeal

Represented by Ahmad Badar, Mlundira appealed the costs order, arguing that the judge had failed to properly apply the general rule that the unsuccessful party should pay the costs of the successful party. He contended that as the respondent's application to strike out his detailed assessment proceedings was dismissed, he should be considered the successful party.

Judgment

Mrs Justice Hill dismissed the appeal, finding that the costs order was justified. She noted that while the respondent's application was dismissed, it was reasonable for the respondent to have made the application given the procedural defects in Mlundira's detailed assessment proceedings. The judge highlighted that the appellant had failed to engage constructively with the respondent's attempts to resolve the matter out of court.

Procedural Missteps

The judgment underscored the importance of compliance with procedural rules, even for litigants in person. The appellant's failure to serve a proper bill of costs initially and his refusal to engage with the respondent's proposals were key factors in the decision to uphold the costs order. The court emphasised that litigants in person must still adhere to procedural requirements.

Implications for Litigants in Person

This case serves as a cautionary tale for litigants in person, highlighting the need for careful adherence to procedural rules and the potential consequences of failing to engage constructively with opposing parties. The judgment reinforces the principle that costs orders are at the discretion of the court and will consider the conduct of the parties.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision to uphold the costs order against Steven Mlundira clarifies the expectations for litigants in person in detailed costs assessments. It serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural compliance and constructive engagement in legal disputes.

Learn More

Explore essential areas of UK employment law, including contracts, workplace policies, and discrimination.