The court considered an application for a protective costs order in judicial review proceedings in environmental law cases.
Held: The central decision was Corner House Research, but that was to be applied purposively and not rigidly. It was appropriate for the court to enquire as to the claimants arrangements with his lawyers as to costs, including any success fee negotiated. In this case the parties had not followed the recommended practice, and the defendant had not applied for a cap on the costs awarded, and ‘In the rare case in which it is necessary to have an oral hearing, it should last a short time as contemplated in Corner House and it should take place in good time before the hearing of the substantive application for judicial review so that the parties may know the position as to their potential liabilities for costs in advance of incurring the costs.’
On an appeal, the court should consider the continuation of the PCO on any application for leave. Without wishing itself to judge the prospects of success, the PCO had been properly limited on this appeal, so that Buglife did face some risk if it proceeded.
Sir Anthony Clarke, Maurice Lay LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1209, Times 18-Nov-2008
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Buglife (the Invertebrate Conservation Trust), Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp and Another Admn 22-Feb-2008
. .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Compton, Regina (on the Application of) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust Admn 26-Nov-2007
Applicaton for protective costs order. The court considered the report of a working group on such orders which said that to be suitable for a PCO a case must be a ‘public interest case’, but found it difficult to define what sort of case fell within . .
Cited – Bullmore and Another v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust Admn 9-Jul-2007
Challenge to Trust’s decision to close local hospital. . .
Cited – Bullmore, Regina (on the Application of) v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust CA 8-Jun-2007
Renewed application for protective costs order. . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited by:
See Also – Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation and Another CA 28-Jan-2009
Buglife appealed against refusal of judicial review of a decision to grant planning permission for the site of a former power station saying that it would adversely affect the environment for invertebrate animals. It now sought a protective costs . .
Cited – Eweida v British Airways plc CA 16-Oct-2009
Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Environment, Judicial Review
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.277386