An unsuccessful applicant's impecuniosity, personal hardship (including mental health difficulties, family breakdown and unemployment), criticisms of the respondent's failure to settle, and public interest arguments do not constitute special circumstances warranting departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event where the application has been wholly unsuccessful. A respondent is not to be criticised for defending proceedings rather than offering a settlement where there is no basis for inferring any entitlement on the part of the applicant to the relief sought.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.