R (Gourlay) v Parole Board

The appeal in R (Gourlay) v Parole Board concerned the award of costs in judicial review proceedings against the Parole Board. The appellant, Mr Gourlay, a life prisoner, had successfully challenged a decision of the Board not to recommend his transfer to open conditions. He sought an order for costs against the Board, arguing that the principles in R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner did not apply to the Board when it was deciding questions of transfer, and that there were exceptional circumstances justifying an award of costs. The first instance judge and the Court of Appeal rejected his submissions. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Davies continued to represent the approach that should be adopted to costs orders against courts or tribunals, and whether the Board should be treated as a court or tribunal for that purpose.

The Court held that it would ordinarily be slow to intervene in matters of practice, including guidance given by the Court of Appeal as to the practice to be followed by lower courts in relation to the award of costs. The Court of Appeal must fulfil its primary responsibility for monitoring and controlling developments in practice, but its decisions on such matters could not be treated as binding precedents in the way in which its decisions on questions of law were. The Court of Appeal should only review its previous decisions on matters of practice where there was sufficient reason to do so, such as a material change of circumstances. In this case, the Court of Appeal had carefully considered the appellant's submissions and rejected them on their merits, committing no error of law. The principles in Davies were consistent with the Civil Procedure Rules and the approach did not treat legally aided litigants differently from others. There was nothing in the Court of Appeal's reasoning which was erroneous in law, or with which the Supreme Court would consider it appropriate to interfere as a matter of practice. The appeal was dismissed.