Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 251 (Jun)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court
Judge:

Latham LJ and Nelson J

Representation David Hart QC and Jeremy Hyam (instructed by Richard Buxton, Cambridge) for the claimant.
  Peter Harrison QC and Lee Bennett (instructed by Clifford Chance) for the interested party.
Judgment Dates: 19 June 2008

Catchwords

Judicial review - Costs of application - Pre-emptive order for costs - Protective costs order - Claimant seeking permission to apply for judicial review of decision of district judge not to add other potential complainants to her complaint of statutory nuisance - Whether protective costs order ought to be granted - Whether decision on protective costs order criminal cause or matter - s 82.

The Case

Judicial review Costs of application. The principles concerning the grant of protective costs orders had to be applied flexibly and, in environmental cases, in the light of the Aarhus Convention. Where the claimant sought a protective costs order in respect of judicial review proceedings to challenge the decision of a district judge not to add other potential complainants to her complaint under s82 of the on the basis that to do so would give rise to duplicity, there was no public interest to justify the grant of a protective costs order. The instant case concerned a procedural wrangle that did not affect the underlying rights of the parties. The protective costs order was bound up so clearly with the underlying application for permission to apply for judicial review that it was a criminal cause or matter.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.