Blackside Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Mr. Justice Edwards-Stuart:

1. This judgment deals with consequential matters arising out of the judgment that I handed down on 23 July 2013.

2. The Claimant seeks a declaration in the following terms: “It is declared that there were not reasonable grounds for suspecting or believing that the goods are the subject of this claim were liable to forfeiture at the date of seizure on the material before this Court.”

3. I decline to grant a declaration in these terms. The conclusion at paragraph 76 of the judgment speaks for itself, but was based (self-evidently) on the untested evidence before the court. The issue of whether or not there were in fact reasonable grounds for the seizure is a question that should be determined at the condemnation proceedings: see paragraph 92 of the judgment. To give, as it were, an interim declaration on the basis of untested evidence put before the court in an application for judicial review is not, in my view, likely to be of any practical use, even if it were otherwise appropriate. It will add nothing to what I have already said at paragraph 76 of the judgment.

4. The Claimant seeks a further declaration in the following terms: “It is further declared that the said seizure was therefore [invalid]/[improper].”

5. In my view, this further declaration is contrary to the conclusions reached at paragraphs 78-80 of the judgment. In any event, this is the issue that will be before the court in the condemnation proceedings. I therefore decline to make a declaration in these terms.

6. As to costs, the Defendant has been successful in the event, but it did raise a number of issues on which it failed: for example, the double use of the ARC; the allegation that the driver was the agent of the Claimant; the allegation that the driver committed an offence; and the submissions on what constituted a valid written notice.

7. In addition, the Claimant correctly points out that the court was critical of certain aspects of the Defendant’s conduct in relation to notices of seizure.

8. However, the Defendant makes the point that, when giving permission, Mitting J said that the Claimant was unlikely to obtain an order for restoration of the goods: a prediction that proved correct.

9. In these circumstances I do not consider that it would be appropriate for the Defendant to be awarded all its costs. However, having succeeded in resisting the claim I consider that it should recover a significant proportion of its costs and, doing the best I can, I consider that the fair order is that the Claimant should pay two thirds of the Defendant’s costs, which I assess in the sum of £4,854.40.

10. I direct that this sum is to be paid within 21 days.