The Court of Appeal ordered the unsuccessful applicant to pay the respondent DPP's costs on a party/party basis following refusal of leave to appeal in confiscation proceedings. The Court held that the novelty of statutory construction issues did not make the matter a test case justifying departure from the usual costs rule, and that the applicant's potential inability to pay costs did not disentitle the respondent to a costs order.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.