||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 251 (Jun)
||Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court
Latham LJ and Nelson J
||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.
||19 June 2008
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.
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.
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports