Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only at prohibitive expense. The costs officers asked how the principle should be applied.
Held: Any limitation to be applied to a party’s costs was to be at the direction of the court only. The task and jurisdiction of the costs officers was limited to those set out in the Supreme Court Rules 2009.
Lord Hope said: ‘The Supreme Court is a creature of statute. But it has inherited all the powers that were vested in the House of Lords as the ultimate court of appeal. So it has the same powers as the House had to correct any injustice caused by an earlier order of the House or this court. It would however be more consistent with the principle which Lord Browne-Wilkinson described to say that the power is available to correct any injustice, however it may have arisen . . ‘
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Dyson
[2010] UKSC 57, [2011] 1 WLR 79, [2010] NPC 125, [2011] 1 All ER 785, [2011] 1 EG 64, [2011] Env LR 13
Bailii, Bailii Summary
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998, Supreme Court Rules 2009
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 – Edwards, Regina (on the Application Of) v Environment Agency and others Admn 19-Apr-2005
. .
Cited – Edwards and Another v The Environment Agency Others CA 27-Jun-2006
. .
At HL – Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
Cited – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Environment Agency and Others CA 19-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Environment Agency and Others CA 19-Jul-2006
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Austin and Others v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants appealed against refusal of a Group Litigation Order (GLO). Over 500 parties wished to claim in nuisance caused by open cast mining operations conducted by the defendants.
Held: The appeals failed. The making of a GLO is a matter . .
Reference – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
SC Reference – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .
At SC (1) – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
At SC – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
AT SC (1) – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 13-Feb-2014
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters – Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Costs, Environment, European
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.427164