Report comment

The requirement for the operation of the Courts is that they should be fair. The fees and costs rules should be used to ensure that people seeking the Court's or the Tribunal's help are at some degree of risk if they bring an unfair or an onerous claim. We now, thank goodness, have deposit orders which can be used to impose costs consequences on people who are using access to justice as a means of oppression. The Tribunal should cost something to use even if it is nominal, with a remission for people who have no money. The Civil Costs charges are simply good old Imperial Chinese Squeeze and are wholly unacceptable in a society where Magna Carta was compelled upon an arbitary and unjust crown as long ago as 1215. This decision is authority for the proposition that in this country at least, you can't get away with arbitary or unfair government for any length of time. I want a costs regime where those who pursue oppressive action on behalf of public bodies or large organisations can have PWOM orders made against them, standing for "Playing with their own money". Such orders would make officers or servants of the company or governmental body (pursuing a vindictive case) concerned personally responsible for the continuing costs from the date of the order without the right of indemnity. Such an order should have been made in the recent Isle of Wight "Truancy" Case and it would have brought that case to an end at a much earlier state with a much happier result. Real consequences for real bad behaviour make everything run more smoothly.