Maiden London Ltd v Ruddick and another [2018] EWHC 3684 (QB)
Maiden London arose from costs awards made after three planning appeals were withdrawn. It is important because it explains how a court must treat the wording of a costs order when the apparent intention behind the order does not match what the order actually says.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2018] EWHC 3684 (QB)
- Court
- High Court, Queen's Bench Division
- Judgment date
- 13th December 2018
- Judge
- Yip J
The wording of the costs order controls
The Secretary of State had made costs orders relating to three planning appeals. The wording excluded common costs incurred across the appeals, although the reasoning suggested that the decision-maker may instead have intended common costs to be recovered once rather than excluded altogether.
Yip J held that a costs judge could construe the order and, if genuinely ambiguous, could use the reasons as an aid to interpretation. What the costs judge could not do was rewrite the order to give effect to what it probably ought to have said.
An incorrect order must be challenged through the proper route
If the order itself is wrong, the remedy is to challenge or correct that order through the appropriate legal procedure. Detailed assessment is not an opportunity to repair its substance retrospectively.
That makes the exact wording of a Planning Inspectorate or Secretary of State costs award commercially important.
Why it matters for planning appeal costs
The case is directly relevant when parties seek to recover an award made in a planning appeal. It underlines the need to check the operative order immediately, rather than relying on the reasoning or assuming that a later costs assessment can cure defective wording.
See Planning Geek’s guide to recovering a planning appeal costs award.
Source limitation
Planning Geek has not located a currently accessible copy of the original approved judgment. This summary is checked against detailed case reports from TMC Legal and 39 Essex Chambers, both of which identify the neutral citation and the reasoning of Yip J.
A useful detailed report is available from TMC Legal.
Maiden London Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026