“An extraordinary story which would have raised our eyebrows at its implausibility had it come from our spy novelists. In late 2006, Alexander Litvinenko was murdered by polonium-210 given to him in London. He was an ex-Russian Federation FSB agent, but by then was a UK citizen. He had accused Putin of the murder of the journalist Anna Politovskaya. He may or may not have been working for MI6 at the time of his death. The prime suspects for the killing are in Russia, not willing to help the UK with its inquiries. But rightly, in one form or another, we want to know what really happened.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Regina (Edwards and another) v Environment Agency and others (No 2) (C-260/11); [2013] WLR (D) 136
“The requirement pursuant to article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC and article 15a of Council Directive 96/61/EC that the review by members of the public of the legality of environmental decisions by public law bodies should not be “prohibitively expensive” meant that the members of the public covered by those provisions should not be prevented from seeking or pursuing a claim for judicial review by reason of the financial burden that might arise.”
WLR Daily, 11th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Edwards and another) v Environment Agency and others [2010] UKSC 57; [2011] WLR (D) 327
“The function of costs officers was to carry out detailed assessments of costs, subject to any directions that might be given to them by the court. Decisions as to whether the receiving party should receive less than 100% of the assessed costs were reserved to the court.”
WLR Daily, 15th December 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A High Court judge has refused an injunction that could have further delayed the start of the new mental health and public law legal aid contracts – but awarded a protective costs order to enable a legal challenge to the two Legal Services Commission tender processes.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 8th November 2010
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Court of Appeal
“Where a party with limited means applied for a protective costs order to bring a matter of public importance before the court, and that party was represented by means of a conditional fee agreement, the agreed success fee was relevant to the amount of the cap on the costs order and consequently was to be disclosed to the court.”
The Times, 18th November 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“On an application for a protective costs order the principles set out in the authorities were to be applied and the procedure followed in a flexible way, taking into account the circumstances of the particular case. The costs in general should be relatively modest and were likely to be capped. In deciding the amount of any cap on liability the agreed success fee for a conditional fee agreement was relevant and as a result was to be disclosed to the court.”
WLR Daily, 10th November 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R (Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 749; [2008] WLR (D) 221
“The Court of Appeal set down the appropriate procedure to deal with protective costs orders in the Court of Appeal.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R (Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust; [2008] WLR (D) 123
“There was no test of exceptionality to be applied before a protective costs order could be made.”
WLR Daily, 23rd April 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2025