‘A mother has been ordered to pay Hertfordshire County Council costs of £5,245 after being held to have acted unreasonably over an appeal on her daughter’s schooling, a judgment published this week on Bailii has revealed.’
Local Government Lawyer, 1st May 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The government is to abolish the recoverability of success fees in defamation cases – but retain it for after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums, it announced yesterday.’
Litigation Futures, 30th November 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘An interesting point arose in this judicial review (for which see Rosalind English’s post here). Could the claimant get the benefit of an order that any costs he might have had to pay were capped at £5,000? The original judge, Thirlwall J, when granting permission, had refused this costs protection. Ouseley J granted it, though, because the claimant won, the order is academic (short of a successful appeal by the defendant). ‘
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th November 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives have urged peers to amend the judicial review provisions in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, saying the measures would have a “chilling effect”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th October 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Coventry v. Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, 23 July 2014, read judgment and Austin v. Miller Argent [2014] EWCA Civ 1012, 21 July 2014. Two important cases in the last few days showing how difficult it is to find a fair way to litigate private nuisance cases. Most of these claims have a modest financial value, but may raise complex factual and expert issues, even before you get to the law. The first case I shall deal with, Coventry, shows the iniquities of the recently departed system. The second, Austin, the dangers of the new.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Austin v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1012; [2014] WLR (D) 331
‘Private nuisance actions were in principle capable of constituting procedures which fell within the scope of article 9.3 of the Aarhus Convention. There had to be a significant public interest in the action to justify conferring special costs protection on a claimant. The article 9.4 obligation which afforded procedural costs protection was no more than a factor to take into account when deciding whether to grant a protected costs order.’
WLR Daily, 21st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Last night saw the House of Lords’ first reaction to the Government’s proposed changes to judicial review as the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill had its second reading. Already dissected at some length in this blog, the proposals have been roundly criticised by both the senior judiciary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Consultations responses, including from JUSTICE, expressed concern that the measures appear, by design or coincidence, to undermine the rule of law, inhibit transparency and shield the Government from judicial scrutiny. Two key concerns arise from the Government proposals: restricting access for individuals without substantial means and limiting the courts’ discretion to do justice in the public interest. Yesterday’s debate was robust and eloquent, with former Law Lords joined by bishops and backbenchers alike to condemn the new measures.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Angela Patrick, Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE, summarises the important Joint Committee on Human Rights report “The implications for access to justice of the Government’s proposals to reform judicial review”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th April 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Litigation costs are troublesome, but they are particularly difficult in environmental cases where the claimant is not necessarily pursuing his private interests. This case is the result of a long-running and successful campaign by NGOs to persuade the EU Commission to investigate UK environmental legal costs. The main finding may not bother the UK too much, because wisely it saw this one coming and changed costs rules in environmental public law cases. But a subsidiary ruling about cross-undertakings as to damages will cause the courts, if not the Government, to rethink things.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A European Union (“EU”) Directive could not be transposed by national case law since EU law conferred on individuals specific rights which would need unequivocal rules in order to be effective. In the field of public participation in decision‑making and access to justice in environmental matters, the costs regime laid down by United Kingdom case law did not ensure a claimant reasonable predictability in relation to both whether the costs of the judicial proceedings in which he became involved were payable by him and their amount, although such predictability appeared particularly necessary because judicial proceedings in the United Kingdom entailed high lawyers’ fees. Moreover, the United Kingdom’s system of cross-undertakings in respect of the grant of interim relief constituted an additional element of uncertainty and imprecision so far as concerned compliance with the requirement that proceedings not be prohibitively expensive.’
WLR Daily, 13th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Following recent announcements in the press, including a front page headline in The Times this week, the Government published the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill on Wednesday, 5 February 2014. Part 4 of the Bill contains a number of important changes to be introduced which seek, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, to prevent judicial review from being a “brake on growth”. However, whilst it has been reported in the national press that the proposals mean that only individuals or groups with a financial interest in a case will be able to bring a challenge, this is inaccurate. The Government originally proposed narrowing the test for standing so as to restrict the availability of judicial review to those with a “direct interest” but that proposal has now been dropped.’
No. 5 Chambers, 6th February 2014
Source: www.no5.com
‘Changes to the rules governing judicial review (JR) claims will ensure that those challenging the decisions of public bodies face a “fair level of financial risk”, the Government has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th February 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Controversial proposals to restrict judicial review will go ahead by way of a “a tough package of reform”, the government confirmed yesterday. Publishing its response to the consultation, Judicial Review: Proposals for further reform, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, said: “I believe in protecting judicial review as a check on unlawful executive action, but I am equally clear that it should not be abused, to act as a brake on growth.”
LegalVoice, 6th February 2014
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
“The Plantagenet Alliance Ltd (R o.t.a) v. Secretary of State for Justice and others, Haddon-Cave J, 18 October 2013 (PCO), and on permission, 15 August 2013. I posted here on the original judgment giving the Plantagenet Alliance permission to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to re-bury Richard III in Leicester. At the time, the judge had made a full Protective Costs Order in favour of the Alliance, so that it would not have to pay costs if it lost. The judge had also ordered what he envisaged to be a short hearing to determine in what sum the Alliance’s costs should be capped. if it won.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The High Court has comprehensively rejected the government’s bid to overturn the grant of a protective costs order (PCO) in favour of campaigners for the reburial of King Richard III in York.”
Litigation Futures, 18th October 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“Forgive me for returning to this case, but it raises all sorts of questions. On the face of it, it concerns 2 specific environmental directives, but it has implications for costs generally in environmental cases.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025