||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 183 (Dec)
|| UKSC 57
Lord Hope DP, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Mance and Sir John Dyson SCJJ
||David Wolfe (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental and Public Law) for the claimant.
||James Eadie QC, James Maurici and Charles Banner (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
||15 December 2010
Judicial review - Costs of application - Protective costs order - Principles to be applied in making order - Test for 'prohibitively expensive' - Whether test subjective or objective - Council Directive (EEC) 85/337, art 10(a) - Council Directive (EC) 96/61, art 15a.
Judicial review Costs of application. The Supreme Court ruled that: (i) it was not open to the costs officers, where applications to reduce or cap a party's liability had been made to and considered by and rejected by the court, to achieve that result through the detailed assessment process; (ii) that the Supreme Court had power to correct any injustice caused by an earlier order of the House of Lords or the Court itself; and (iii) there was doubt as to whether the test for 'prohibitively expensive' in arts 10a of Council Directive (EEC) 85-337 and art 15a of Council Directive (EC) 96-61 should be subjective or objective, and a question would therefore be referred to the European Court of Justice.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- 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
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases