Costs against a regulator
Unless (a) complaint is improperly brought, or, for example, proceeds as it did in in Gorlov v the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2001] EWHC Admin 220, as a "shambles from start to finish", when the Law Society is discharging its responsibilities as a regulator of the profession, an order for costs should not ordinarily be made against it on the basis that costs follow the event. The "event" is simply one factor for consideration. It is not a starting point. There is no assumption that an order for costs in favour of a solicitor who has successfully defeated an allegation of professional misconduct will automatically follow. One crucial feature which should inform the Tribunal's costs decision is that the proceedings were brought by the Law Society in exercise of its regulatory responsibility, in the public interest and the maintenance of proper professional standards. For the Law Society to be exposed to the risk of an adverse costs order simply because properly brought proceedings were unsuccessful might have a chilling effect on the exercise of its regulatory obligations, to the public disadvantage. Per Lord Justice Laws in Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society [2007] EWCA Civ 233.
Categories: Cases, Chapter 14