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 the definition a ‘public interest case’ and what did not. It settled on ‘A public interest case is one where:
i) the issues raised are ones of general public importance, and
(ii) the public interest requires that those issues should be resolved.
The Group agreed that the definition should be given a broad, purposive interpretation. The definition should not be allowed to become unduly restrictive.’
Smith LJ said: ‘It seems to me as a matter of common sense, justice and proportionality that when exercising his discretion as to whether to make an order and if so what order, the judge should take account of the fullness of the extent to which the applicant has satisfied the five Corner House requirements. Where the issues to be raised are of the first rank of general public importance and there are compelling public interest reasons for them to be resolved, it may well be appropriate for the judge to make the strongest of orders, if the financial circumstances of the parties warrant it. But where the issues are of a lower order of general public importance and/or the public interest in resolution is less than compelling, a more modest order may still be open to the judge and a proportionate response to the circumstances.’
Judges:
Waller, Buxton and Smith LJJ
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 2769 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 by:
Cited – Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp CA 4-Nov-2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs
Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.271174