Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, R (on the application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp (Rev 1) [2008] EWCA Civ 1209 (04 November 2008)

Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, R (on the application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp (Rev 1) [2008] EWCA Civ 1209 (04 November 2008)

The court held that Buglife should have protection against costs in the appeal, capping its liability at £10,000, but it would be unjust to grant full protection given its weak prospects of success. The reciprocal cap on recoverable costs imposed by Sullivan J was not erroneous and should be maintained, as justice required both parties to have protection, and the principles in Corner House and Compton were binding and applicable.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 1209
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust; Defendant/respondent: Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation; Interested Party: Rosemound Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) – Application for Protective Costs Orders and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Buglife's application for permission to appeal against the reciprocal costs cap is refused; Buglife's application for a PCO capping its liability in costs in the Court of Appeal is granted; respondent's counter-application for a reciprocal costs cap in the Court of Appeal is granted.
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Costs Capping, Access to Justice, Aarhus Convention Compliance, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Protective Costs Orders Costs Capping Access to Justice Aarhus Convention Compliance Judicial Review Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust

Claimant/appellant

Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation

Defendant/respondent

Rosemound Developments Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) – Application for Protective Costs Orders and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective costs order (PCO) should be granted or extended to the appeal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the reciprocal cap on recoverable costs imposed by Sullivan J should be removed
  3. 3 Appropriate procedural approach for PCO applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Buglife should have protection against costs in the appeal, capping its liability at £10,000, but it would be unjust to grant full protection given its weak prospects of success. The reciprocal cap on recoverable costs imposed by Sullivan J was not erroneous and should be maintained, as justice required both parties to have protection, and the principles in Corner House and Compton were binding and applicable.

Court Disposition

Buglife's application for permission to appeal against the reciprocal costs cap is refused; Buglife's application for a PCO capping its liability in costs in the Court of Appeal is granted; respondent's counter-application for a reciprocal costs cap in the Court of Appeal is granted.

Orders

  • Buglife's liability for costs in the Court of Appeal is capped at £10,000.
  • Respondent's liability for costs to Buglife in the Court of Appeal is capped at £10,000.