Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 183 (Dec)
Neutral Citation: [2010] UKSC 57
Court: Supreme Court

Lord Hope DP, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Mance and Sir John Dyson SCJJ

Representation 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.
Judgment Dates: 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.

The Case

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.

Practice Areas

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