TMC LEGAL | KXO & OYW (BY SZO) V DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL [2026] EWHC 203 (ADMIN)

Описание: KXO & OYW (BY SZO) v Devon County Council [2026] EWHC 203 (Admin)
The High Court ordered a litigation friend to pay all costs of discontinued judicial review proceedings, rejecting limitation to the acknowledgment of service stage under the Mount Cook basis.

🔑 KEY POINTS
CPR 38.6(1) applies automatically on discontinuance and the court will depart from it only where good reason is shown; no such reason was advanced here.
A litigation friend who signs a certificate of suitability under CPR 21.12 undertakes personal liability for any costs order made against the child claimant.
Being an unrepresented or disabled litigant does not exempt a party from the ordinary costs consequences of discontinuance under the Civil Procedure Rules.
The court declined to limit costs recovery to the Mount Cook basis — all of the defendant's costs from commencement were recoverable.
Where enforcement would be disproportionate given personal circumstances, the court may order that costs are not to be enforced without its permission.

📋 CASE SUMMARY Case: KXO & OYW (By SZO) v Devon County Council Citation: [2026] EWHC 203 (Admin) Court: Administrative Court, King's Bench Division Judge: Paul Bowen KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) Decision: Litigation friend ordered to pay all of the defendant's costs on discontinuance; enforcement subject to the court's permission.

⚖️ WHY THIS MATTERS
This decision clarifies that the Mount Cook limitation on costs recovery in judicial review proceedings does not apply where a claimant has voluntarily discontinued. Costs practitioners acting for public bodies in judicial review claims can rely on CPR 38.6(1) to recover full costs on discontinuance without being confined to the acknowledgment of service stage. The case also serves as a practical reminder that litigation friends assume genuine personal financial exposure through the certificate of suitability they sign under CPR 21.12.

🎯 WHAT THE COURT DECIDED
1. The Notice of Discontinuance filed on 5 January 2026 was valid and did not require court permission under CPR 38.2 or CPR 21.10, as it was unilateral and did not constitute a settlement or compromise.
2. CPR 38.6(1) applied, making the claimants liable for all of the defendant's costs up to the date of discontinuance; no application was made to depart from the default rule.
3. The court expressly rejected limitation of recovery to the Mount Cook basis, ordering the full costs of the proceedings.
4. The litigation friend was held personally liable under CPR 21.12 by virtue of the certificate of suitability she signed on 30 May 2023, which contained a clear costs undertaking.
5. In light of the litigation friend's personal circumstances, the costs order was not to be enforced without the court's permission, but a referral for a civil restraint order was precluded by the valid discontinuance.

💼 USEFUL FOR Costs Lawyers | Costs Draftsmen | Solicitors | Barristers | Public Law Practitioners | Local Authority Legal Teams | SEN Lawyers

🔗 LINKS 📖 Read the full blog post: https://tmclegal.co.uk/kxo-oyw-by-szo... ⚖️ BAILII Judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...

📞 CONTACT TMC LEGAL For expert legal costs advice and representation: 🌐 Website: https://www.tmclegal.co.uk

🔔 SUBSCRIBE for regular updates on costs law, civil litigation, and CPR developments

⚠️ DISCLAIMER This video is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal matters, please consult a qualified legal professional.

© 2026 TMC Legal Limited

#JudicialReview #CostsLaw #CPR38 #Discontinuance #LitigationFriend #CPR2112 #MountCook #CivilProcedure #PublicLaw #AdministrativeCourt #CostsConsequences #SENlaw #EducationLaw #LegalCosts #CivilLitigation #CostsPractitioners #CPR386 #UKLaw