Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, R (on the application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp (Rev 1)

Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, R (on the application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp (Rev 1)

The Court of Appeal held that Buglife was entitled to a PCO capping its liability for the respondent's costs in the Court of Appeal at £10,000, and that the respondent's liability for Buglife's costs should also be capped at £10,000, following the approach in Corner House and Compton. The reciprocal cap imposed by Sullivan J was not set aside, as there was no error of principle or compelling reason to revisit his discretion. The court emphasized that all circumstances must be considered, and that the procedure for PCOs should be followed to avoid unnecessary satellite litigation.

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 (environmental) / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal; Applications for Permission to Appeal Out of Time and for Protective Costs Orders
Outcome
Buglife's application for permission to appeal against the reciprocal costs cap was refused; Buglife's application for a PCO in the Court of Appeal was granted; the respondent's application for a reciprocal cap in the Court of Appeal was granted.
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders (pcos), Costs in Judicial Review, Access to Justice, Public Interest Litigation, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas)
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Protective Costs Orders (pcos) Costs in Judicial Review Access to Justice Public Interest Litigation Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas)

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 (environmental) / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal; Applications for Permission to Appeal Out of Time and for Protective Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective costs order (PCO) should be granted to cap Buglife's liability for costs in the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the reciprocal cap on Buglife's recoverable costs imposed by Sullivan J should be removed
  3. 3 What is the correct approach and procedure for granting PCOs in environmental judicial review cases

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Buglife was entitled to a PCO capping its liability for the respondent's costs in the Court of Appeal at £10,000, and that the respondent's liability for Buglife's costs should also be capped at £10,000, following the approach in Corner House and Compton. The reciprocal cap imposed by Sullivan J was not set aside, as there was no error of principle or compelling reason to revisit his discretion. The court emphasized that all circumstances must be considered, and that the procedure for PCOs should be followed to avoid unnecessary satellite litigation.

Court Disposition

Buglife's application for permission to appeal against the reciprocal costs cap was refused; Buglife's application for a PCO in the Court of Appeal was granted; the respondent's application for a reciprocal cap in the Court of Appeal was granted.

Orders

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