R (HALTON BC) v SoS (2024) EWHC 2030 (Admin) involved a costs order made against the local planning authority pursuant to Section 250 in the Local Government Act 1972 after its expert witness failed to come up to proof during cross-examination at a called-in public inquiry resulting in the inquiry process being aborted. Fordham J set out the following key points from the judicial review case law:-
- The judicial review Court could intervene in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction where the costs decision-maker had materially misdirected themselves, or the decision was unreasonable in a public law sense;
- Clear and intelligible reasons had to be given for the decision;
- The decision letter had to be read straightforwardly and as a whole;
- The decision as to costs involved a wide statutory power vested in the costs decision-maker: decision was not unreasonable because a different decision-maker might have taken a different view, or because there was room for significant disagreement;
- There was a clear distinction between interpretation of policy (appropriate for judicial analysis on an objective correctness standard) and application of policy (an exercise of judgment for the primary decision-maker subject to a reasonableness standard);
- Public law unreasonableness meant that the decision was outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker, or there was a demonstrable flaw in their reasoning;
- The Courts should respect the expertise of specialist planning decision-makers;
- A decision-maker could depart from policy guidance if clear reasons were given;
- The reasons had to be intelligible and adequate: Decision Letters should be read in a straightforward manner recognising that they were addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and arguments advanced: their conclusions should not be laboriously directed in an effort to find fault.