Eley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 1632 (06 November 2008)

Eley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 1632 (06 November 2008)

The judge at first instance was entitled to grant a protective costs order based on the principles in Corner House, as clarified by Compton and Buglife. The issues of public importance and the claimant's personal interest were matters for the judge's discretion. There was no error of principle or process justifying appellate intervention.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 1632
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Eley; Defendant/applicant: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against a Protective Costs Order
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Public Interest Litigation, Planning Appeals, Costs Capping, Aarhus Convention
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Protective Costs Orders Public Interest Litigation Planning Appeals Costs Capping Aarhus Convention

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eley

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against a Protective Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting a protective costs order (PCO) in favour of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the issue was of general public importance justifying a PCO
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's personal interest precluded a PCO

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance was entitled to grant a protective costs order based on the principles in Corner House, as clarified by Compton and Buglife. The issues of public importance and the claimant's personal interest were matters for the judge's discretion. There was no error of principle or process justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to appeal against protective costs order refused