Compton, R (on the application of) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust

Compton, R (on the application of) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust

The majority held that the issues raised, while of borderline general public importance, were sufficient to satisfy the Corner House principles and that Holman J was entitled to exercise his discretion to grant a modest PCO. Exceptionality is not a separate requirement. The procedural guidance in Corner House regarding setting aside PCOs should be followed, and compelling reasons are required to set aside a PCO made on paper. The appeals against the form and grant of the PCOs were dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Mrs Val Compton; Respondent: Wiltshire Primary Care Trust; Intervener: The Public Law Project
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed (majority); PCOs upheld
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Judicial Review Procedure, Public Interest Litigation
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Costs Protective Costs Orders Judicial Review Procedure Public Interest Litigation

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

Parties

Mrs Val Compton

Applicant

Wiltshire Primary Care Trust

Respondent

The Public Law Project

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principles for granting Protective Costs Orders (PCOs) as set out in R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were correctly applied
  2. 2 Whether the issues raised are of general public importance and the public interest requires their resolution
  3. 3 Whether exceptionality is a separate requirement for granting a PCO

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the issues raised, while of borderline general public importance, were sufficient to satisfy the Corner House principles and that Holman J was entitled to exercise his discretion to grant a modest PCO. Exceptionality is not a separate requirement. The procedural guidance in Corner House regarding setting aside PCOs should be followed, and compelling reasons are required to set aside a PCO made on paper. The appeals against the form and grant of the PCOs were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed (majority); PCOs upheld

Orders

  • Both parties' appeals against Holman J's order dismissed; PCO in MIU case upheld with cap at £20,000 and no recovery by claimant
  • Appeal from McCombe J dismissed; Simon J's PCO order in day hospital case confirmed with cap at £25,000