Corner House Research, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry

Corner House Research, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry

The appeal was allowed because the case raised issues of general public importance concerning anti-corruption procedures and government consultation policy, the claimant had no private interest, would be unable to proceed without a PCO, and the application had a real prospect of success. The court restated the principles for granting a PCO and found all criteria satisfied.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Corner House Research; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Intervener: Public Law Project
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Refusal of Protective Costs Order (pco) at Permission Stage
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Public Interest Litigation, Costs in Judicial Review, Consultation Policy, Access to Justice
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Protective Costs Orders Public Interest Litigation Costs in Judicial Review Consultation Policy Access to Justice

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corner House Research

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Defendant/respondent

Public Law Project

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Refusal of Protective Costs Order (pco) at Permission Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a Protective Costs Order (PCO) in a public interest judicial review
  2. 2 What are the governing principles for granting a PCO
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised are of general public importance justifying a PCO

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the case raised issues of general public importance concerning anti-corruption procedures and government consultation policy, the claimant had no private interest, would be unable to proceed without a PCO, and the application had a real prospect of success. The court restated the principles for granting a PCO and found all criteria satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Protective Costs Order granted to Corner House Research, including a costs cap to be set by the Senior Costs Judge.
  • Respondent to pay appellant’s costs of the appeal and the application for a PCO before Mr Justice Davis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.