Goodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire & Luton & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1172 (12 October 2005)

Goodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire & Luton & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1172 (12 October 2005)

A protective costs order was refused because the applicant had a clear private interest in the outcome (seeking a new inquest for her father's death), the public interest in appellate resolution was insufficient given the issue had already been addressed at first instance, and the guidelines for PCOs require the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1172
Parties
Appellant: Rita Goodson; First Respondent: H. M. Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton; Second Respondent: Luton & Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (application for Protective Costs Order) / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Post Judgment, Application for Protective Costs Order Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for protective costs order dismissed
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Article 2 ECHR, Inquest Law, Costs in Public Interest Litigation
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Human Rights Protective Costs Orders Article 2 ECHR Inquest Law Costs in Public Interest Litigation

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rita Goodson

Appellant

H. M. Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton

First Respondent

Luton & Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (application for Protective Costs Order) / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Post Judgment, Application for Protective Costs Order Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective costs order (PCO) should be granted at the appellate stage in a case involving Article 2 ECHR obligations at inquest
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a sufficient lack of private interest to justify a PCO
  3. 3 Whether the public interest requires the issue to be resolved at appellate level

Ratio Decidendi

A protective costs order was refused because the applicant had a clear private interest in the outcome (seeking a new inquest for her father's death), the public interest in appellate resolution was insufficient given the issue had already been addressed at first instance, and the guidelines for PCOs require the applicant to have no private interest in the substantive outcome.

Court Disposition

Application for protective costs order dismissed

Orders

  • No protective costs order granted
  • Costs to follow the event as per usual practice