Won Against the Authority in Court – Still Forced to Pay Legal Costs

A taxi driver got his license back after winning against the Swedish Transport Agency, which he claimed had revoked it on incorrect grounds. But instead of compensation for his legal expenses, the driver has now received a bill of about 60,000 kronor for the state’s legal costs.

The background is that the Swedish Transport Agency revoked the driver’s taxi license after information surfaced suggesting he suffered from epilepsy. The decision was appealed, and after a legal process, the driver prevailed. The court found that there were insufficient grounds for the revocation, which meant he got his license back.

Despite his success, he had to pay his own legal representation costs in the administrative case, which amounted to about 35,000 kronor. This is reported by Dagens Juridik.

Even More to Pay

With the support of lawyers from Centrum för rättvisa (the Centre for Justice), the driver then chose to sue the state. He claimed damages corresponding to the lawyer expenses he had incurred to defend his rights.

The Stockholm District Court notes in its verdict that it was indeed justified for him to hire legal counsel. At the same time, the court believes the case was not so complicated or of such decisive personal significance that the state is obligated to reimburse the costs.

Because the claim for damages did not succeed, the driver must also cover the state’s legal costs, which amount to about 60,000 kronor.

He had requested that each party bear their own costs, referring to the Tort Liability Act. The district court points out that the case concerned a matter of principle where there are no guiding precedents from the Supreme Court, but still does not consider there to be reasons to depart from the general rule on legal costs.

The Court Refers to the Chancellor of Justice

The verdict also states that the driver, in the court’s assessment, should have turned to the Chancellor of Justice before initiating proceedings against the state.

The case documents, however, show that the Chancellor of Justice had already, in February 2025, received a draft of the statement of claim. At that time, the authority concluded there were no grounds for the state to pay any compensation, which led the dispute to proceed to court.

The verdict further notes that the driver has been represented by the Centre for Justice. According to the court, this means he does not himself have to bear the risk of covering the state’s legal costs. That assessment has not been questioned by the driver.