JR costs protection: the Aarhus Convention and PCOs. Luke Wilcox, Landmark Chambers

Similar documents
Planning Court Procedure and Costs Capping Orders

Issues for Parish Councils in High Court challenges

COSTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW. Richard Turney

JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORMS UPDATE

Fixed Costs in Judicial Review and Human Rights

PRACTICE STATEMENT FRESH CLAIM JUDICIAL REVIEWS IN THE IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ON OR AFTER 29 APRIL 2013

PLANNING APPEALS: HIGH COURT CHALLENGES. Stephen Morgan Landmark Chambers

BC LEGAL. An Express Guide to Time Limits Under the Civil Procedure Rules Current as of 1st July 2015

Protective Costs Orders in UK Environmental and Public Law Cases. John Litton QC

HIGH COURT PLANNING CHALLENGES COSTS: AARHUS, THE SULLIVAN REPORT, BUGLIFE AND HINTON ORGANICS. Nathalie Lieven QC

HOW TO MAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT A BETTER PLACE: SOME PROCEDURAL SUGGESTIONS. Michael Fordham Blackstone Chambers

The Aarhus Convention and Costs. Andrew Hogan

-and- SECTION 10 APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME LIMIT RETROSPECTIVELY FOR FILING THE CLAIM FORM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Interim relief and urgent applications and the post permission stage

Recent developments in environmental and agricultural law. UKAEL Conference, September 2011: EU LAW AND THE LAND. Gwion Lewis

Before: LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER and LORD JUSTICE VOS Between:

Before : THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE Between :

Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE PLATTS Between : - and -

Cltp6229 DEVELOPMENTS IN JR PROCEDURE. Notes prepared by Gordon Nardell, 39 Essex Street

PROTECTIVE EXPENSES ORDERS

QOCS and Credit Hire: a Pyrrhic victory avoided and Autofocus: the End of the Road

Victoria House Bloomsbury Place London WC1A 2EB 17 October Before:

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA. and

ALBA SEMINAR 5 JUNE 2013 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN [1] GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES LTD. [2] SILVANUS ERNEST.

LITIGATING THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Before : MR. JUSTICE TEARE Between :

COSTS IN THE FIRST-TIER AND UPPER TRIBUNALS: DOES THE REGIME PROMOTE ACCESS TO JUSTICE?

Ensuring access to environmental justice in England and Wales

B e f o r e: MRS JUSTICE LANG. Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF DEAN Claimant

Castle Debate Climate Change Litigation Richard Wald Barrister 39 Essex Chambers

Consultation. Civil Procedure Rules: Costs Capping Orders

Witness Preparation. Introduction

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN

Part 18 Questions in RTA Cases Where Fraud is Alleged. By Deborah Tompkinson Clerksroom August 2012

Do you wish there to be a one month stay to attempt to settle the claim, either by informal discussion or by alternative dispute resolution?

Ensuring access to environmental justice in England and Wales

PROSPECTIVE IMPACT OF BREXIT ON JURISPRUDENCE AND COSTS. ACL MANCHESTER CONFERENCE 18 th MAY 2018 SEMINAR NOTES

Before : HHJ WORSTER Between : - and -

The Thirty-Nine Essex Street Annual Review of Planning Case Law

Charles De Barbier and another v Roland Leduc HCVAP 2008/010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review NORMAN CHARLES RODRIGUEZ

PRACTICE NOTE. New Claims

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

The rules and background to fundamental dishonesty Ben Handy, St John s Chambers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE RHEANN CHUNG DEXTER ST LOUIS AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TABLE TENNIS ASSOCIATION

STANDARD CFA TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY CASES TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL

Protective Costs Orders in Judicial Review PARISHIL PATEL AND KATE GRANGE

LORD JUSTICE JACKSON S REVIEW OF CIVIL LITIGATION COSTS FINAL REPORT. Summary of Recommendations

JUDGMENT. Mandalia (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 490 Date of Delivery: 29/07/2016 Court: High Court

LOWIN. and W PORTSMOUTH & CO. JUDGMENT (As Approved)

Amendments to Statements of Case Learning the Hard Way: PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov and others [2016] EWHC 2816 (Comm)

Planning Law and Practice for Parish Councils. Landmark Chambers Monday 30 April 2018

Plan B: How to challenge bad developments in court. A short guide to how and when you can challenge planning decisions in the courts

Richard of York Gives Battle Again. Andrew Hogan

RTA Post Jackson How to deal with them 3 months on what have we learned?

Before : MR EDWARD PEPPERALL QC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE Between : ABDULRAHMAN MOHAMMED Claimant

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANGUILLA CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D. 2003

Section 8 Possession Proceedings

Shortfalls on Sale. Toby Watkin

Judgement As Approved by the Court

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER RULE K OF THE RULES OF THE BEFORE MR. CHARLES FLINT Q.C. SITTING AS A JOINTLY APPOINTED SOLE

FOR USE AFTER 1 NOVEMBER

GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO A CLAIM AND COMPLETING THE RESPONSE FORM

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (DIVORCE) -and- GLENFORD DAVID PAMELA SERAPHINE INTERNATIONAL (BVI) MOVERS LTD

Injunctions: the protection of particularly sensitive sites and other recent developments. Jacqueline Lean Landmark Chambers

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN THE BRAVE NEW WORLD EIGHTH LECTURE BY LORD JUSTICE JACKSON IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMME

1.1 Explain when it is necessary and appropriate to make an interim application to the court

Section 94B: The impact upon Article 8 and the appeal rights. The landscape post-kiarie. Admas Habteslasie Landmark Chambers

Williams -v- The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA CIV 852 TOM CARTER

VISTRA TRUST COMPANY (JERSEY) LIMITED (As trustee for the Alsam Settlement, the Colleen Settlement and the Logany Settlement) and

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Centenary Conference March Speech by The Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma

Affordable Housing Program Direct Subsidy Agreement Homeownership Set-Aside Program

Fixed Advocate s Costs in Pre-Action Disclosure Applications: Are They Always Recoverable? THOMAS HERBERT

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT

JUDGMENT. Honourable Attorney General and another (Appellants) v Isaac (Respondent) (Antigua and Barbuda)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINSTRATIVE COURT, HOLGATE J, [2017] EWHC 1998 (Admin)

CHILD PROTECTION ACT REGULATIONS

FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) AND

The Planning Court comes into being. Richard Harwood OBE QC

CHALLENGING DECISION MAKING BY JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE: COSTS. Katie Scott

UNIT 15 CIVIL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2012

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.

A BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA

Section 13 of the Immigration Ordinance: Is the Power Delegable? Citation Hong Kong Law Journal, 2001, v. 31 n. 3, p

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN

Model Report for Experts

WHEN A CLAIM FALLS OUT OF THE PROTOCOL, WHO WINS?

CPR Part 36 Offers Problems in Practice. by Dov Ohrenstein

Before : MR JUSTICE KERR Between :

A joint CPRE/ELF guide Plan B: How to challenge bad developments in court

LIMITATION running the defence

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN GANGADEEN SEEBARAN AND CHRISTINE SUCHIT STEVE SUCHIT FIRST DEFENDANT CAPITAL INSURANCE LIMITED JOEL BASCOMBE

Resolving Your Case Before Trial

Procedural Fairness on Appeal: Is O Cathail No Longer Good Law?

Transcription:

JR costs protection: the Aarhus Convention and PCOs Luke Wilcox, Landmark Chambers

Aarhus costs Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention Access to judicial procedures to challenge acts and omissions of private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of national law relating to the environment must not be prohibitively expensive

What is a law relating to the environment? Term not defined in Aarhus Convention But Art 2(3) suggests there are three categories : Elements of the environment Factors affecting the elements The social environment

Aarhus in the CPR costs protection in practice CPR Rules 45.41 44 CPR Practice Direction 45, para 6

Scope CPR 45.41 Aarhus fixed costs applies to: A claim for judicial review Of a decision act or omission all or part of which is subject to the Convention Including claims proceedings on the basis that the decision etc is so subject

Statutory challenges are excluded from the protection: Venn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] 1 WLR 2328

Opting out (/in ) CPR 45.42 Costs protection can only apply if the claimant positively asks for it Section 6 of N461 Tick box to claim Aarhus protection Must give grounds

The caps CPR 45.43 Costs in Aarhus claims capped as per PD 45 para 6 At present: 5,000 for individual claimants 10,000 for other claimants 35,000 reciprocal cap Unless

Challenges to Aarhus status CPR 45.44 Defendant can dispute entitlement to Aarhus protection Must do so in the Acknowledgment of Service, with grounds Court will then determine if claim is an Aarhus claim at the earliest opportunity (usually at paper permission stage) If court finds the claim is not an Aarhus claim: Normally no order for costs If court find the claim is an Aarhus claim: Defendant pays costs of Aarhus determination On indemnity basis Can take D s total costs liability over the reciprocal cap

Protective Costs Orders generally Rarer than Aarhus costs caps Test is per Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR in R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2005] 1 WLR 2600 Para 74:

(1) A protective costs order may be made at any stage of the proceedings, on such conditions as the court thinks fit, provided that the court is satisfied that: (i) the issues raised are of general public importance; (ii) the public interest requires that those issues should be resolved; (iii) the applicant has no private interest in the outcome of the case; (iv) having regard to the financial resources of the applicant and the respondent(s) and to the amount of costs that are likely to be involved, it is fair and just to make the order; and (v) if the order is not made the applicant will probably discontinue the proceedings and will be acting reasonably in so doing.

PCOs - procedure Application on face of claim form Supported by requisite evidence (including strictly a schedule of the claimant s future costs of JR) If D wishes to resist, it should set out its reasons in the AoS Application then considered by judge on the papers. If refusal, C can request an oral hearing on the PCO issue A common current practice order on the papers including provision a) expressly enabling either side to request a review of terms at a hearing; and b) imposing a costs cap on that hearing

Interveners Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 s. 87 creates cost risk for interveners in JRs at High Court and Court of Appeal level. Interveners at risk where: Intervener acts in substance as a principal party Intervener s contribution not of significant assistance to the court Significant part of intervener s contribution relates to matters not necessary for the court to resolve Intervener acts unreasonably

Forthcoming reform PCOs will be changed by the Criminal Justice and Court Act 2015 Ss. 88-90 New comprehensive code for costs protection More restrictive for non-aarhus PCOs, e.g.: Cannot be made pre-permission No power for the court to make order of its own initiative Must include reciprocal cap Not yet in force

lwilcox@landmarkchambers.co.uk