Refugee Legal Centre, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1296 (22 September 2004)
A consent order for no costs at the substantive appeal is appropriate given the pro bono nature of claimant representation and the Secretary of State's consent; this does not constitute a considered judgment on the substantive issues.
- Citation
- [2004] EWCA Civ 1296
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Refugee Legal Centre; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 September 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Appeal / Interlocutory Order Prior to Substantive Appeal
- Outcome
- Consent order for no costs at substantive appeal hearing granted.
- Legal Topics
- Pre Emptive Costs Orders, Public Interest Litigation, Costs Protection
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Refugee Legal Centre
Claimant/appellant
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Interlocutory Order Prior to Substantive Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a protective costs order should be made in favour of the claimant in public interest litigation
- 2 Appropriateness of consent order for costs protection
Ratio Decidendi
A consent order for no costs at the substantive appeal is appropriate given the pro bono nature of claimant representation and the Secretary of State's consent; this does not constitute a considered judgment on the substantive issues.
Court Disposition
Consent order for no costs at substantive appeal hearing granted.
Orders
- No order for costs at the hearing of the substantive appeal.
- List of Claimants' Authorities to be annexed as a Schedule to the judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment