Litigating equality: a costly business?

5 April 2011 by

Commission for Equality & Human Rights v Griffin, Lumby, Darby

[2011] EWHC 675 (Admin) Read judgment

The Commission for Equality & Human Rights has been ordered to pay costs of court proceedings to two members and a former member of the British National Party. Although the decision is a technical one relating only to costs of proceedings, it highlights the financial risks which must be borne by those seeking to police and enforce compliance with the requirements of human rights law.

The Equality Act proceedings

In mid 2010, the Commission issued an application to have the Defendants, all of whom either are or were senior members of the BNP, committed to prison for contempt of court. The basis for the application was that the Defendants had breached a court order which they were required to comply with following proceedings brought by the Commission under the Equality Act 2006. Those proceedings had been brought to prevent breaches of the Equality Act in the BNP’s terms of membership, specifically relating to race discrimination. However, the order did not make it clear what “terms of membership” meant. The court found that it would not be right for the Defendants to be committed for contempt on the basis of one of two possible meanings of a court order.

The costs fallout

This decision of Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mr Justice Ramsey concerned which party should bear the costs of the application to commit. The Defendants wanted the Commission to pay their costs of the application on the indemnity basis and make an interim payment on account. The indemnity basis is one of two possible ways in which costs may be ordered to be paid. On this basis, any doubt about what is reasonable in relation to the amount of costs is resolved in favour of the recipient party. Such a favourable order is made in situations where the conduct of the paying party is outside the norm, due to factors such as inappropriate or unreasonable behaviour. An interim payment is where  a portion of the total to be paid is paid earlier than the balance.

The Defendants’ costs application was based on the argument the Commission’s application had not been successful and all the Commission was doing in bringing the proceedings was clarifying the earlier court order and trying to ensure future compliance. The proceedings had therefore been unnecessary. Further, the financial penalty they would suffer if they were not awarded their costs would be out of proportion with any breaches of the order which might have been committed. One of the Defendants had very little or no control over compliance with the order, having left the Party by the time it was made.

The Commission argued that, by acting unreasonably, the Defendants brought the proceedings on themselves. With the benefit of hindsight, it was accepted that there may have been better ways of resolving the ambiguity in the order, but the Defendants did not make clear in correspondence that they disagreed with the Commission’s interpretation. It asked the court to award no costs to either party in relation to the committal proceedings.

Who gets what?

The court noted that before the proceedings had begun, the Defendants had not made clear the particular interpretation of the order to the Commission which they were adopting. Had they done so, the proceedings may not have been embarked on. The Defendants were open to some criticism for this, but it was not ultimately found to have had a great effect on the course of the proceedings.

The Defendant whose involvement was very slight, having left the Party altogether by the time of the order, was entitled to all of her costs. Another Defendant who had some (but really very little) influence over the changes to the BNP’s constitution, was also awarded his costs.

Mr Griffin, the Defendant who had in fact been the driving force in changing the constitution, was ultimately awarded his costs of the application to commit, although his confrontational conduct was taken into account when deciding the matter. This was not sufficiently blameworthy to mean he should not be awarded his costs. However, he had also made an application which had not been pursued once the hearing began, and the Commission was awarded its costs of preparing for that application.

No order for interim costs was made.

Indemnity costs

Both the Defendants and the Commission sought their costs on the indemnity basis.

Mr Griffin’s application which was not pursued gave rise to the Commission’s costs entitlement, but there was no feature in his conduct in dropping the matter which was sufficiently outside the norm to warrant indemnity costs being awarded.

Similarly, the Defendants argued that in bringing the unsuccessful application to commit the Commission had conducted itself in a way which justified an order for indemnity costs against it. However, the Court did not consider the conduct to be sufficiently unreasonable. Something more than bringing an unsuccessful application would be necessary for such an order to be appropriate.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:


  1. stratton says:

    It appears this application was ill-founded and should not have been brought.

    What Surprises me is that it was funded by the public purse.

    It is the public who are ill-served!

  2. John Wadham EHRC says:

    A brief comment on our action against the BNP and the issue of costs. The decision of costs was not given following a hearing. The last actual hearing of this matter was in the High Court in November 2010 where it was decided that there would be no committal of Nick Griffin.

    This decision was based on the lack of clarity around the terms of the original injunction granted by the County Court. It was also recognised that by the time of the High Court hearing the BNP had agreed to comply with most of the terms of the injunction on which the original committal application had been based. The EHRC was however required to refer the matter to the High Court in order ensure compliance with that injunction.

    Arguments for costs were then submitted and decided on the papers. The Commission had already obtained an order for their full costs of the county court proceedings. Nick Griffin had also applied to have the injunction made by the County Court set aside. He withdrew that application at the committal hearing and will therefore have to pay the Commission’s costs of preparing their defence. As Mr Griffin acted as a litigant in person and then instructed a charity to act on his behalf during the committal proceedings the Commission therefore does not expect these costs to be substantial and according to the terms of the costs order these will be offset against the sum owed by the BNP to the Commission in both courts.

    Litigation always carries a risk of costs but the priority for the Commission was that the BNP took the steps the Commission requested in order to comply with equality legislation.

  3. tara Davison says:

    The EHRC who’s literature states it is “creating a fairer Britain” is doing anything but with this blatant persecution of individuals-some with almost nil connection with its erroneous complaint.

    The EHRC is funded with public money – your money and mine- why are we paying for this group to pursue applications without merit.

    The EHRC is damaging the cause of Human Rights and should be disbanded

  4. ObiterJ says:

    Seems to be a fair decision. The moral of the tale is perhaps that the terms of court orders need to be clearer. Time spent getting it right may just save the later need for such enforcement hearings etc.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: