Le Cornu and Risoli -v- AG [2015] JRC 051 (05 March 2015)

Le Cornu and Risoli -v- AG [2015] JRC 051 (05 March 2015)

Given the issue raised was of general public importance, applicants had no private pecuniary interest, and were not aware of protective costs orders, it would not be fair to order them to pay respondent's costs. However, it would also be unfair for the successful respondent to bear his own costs. The Court has jurisdiction to order costs out of public funds in such cases, and does so here.

Citation
[2015] JRC 051
Parties
Applicant: Mr Le Cornu; Applicant: Mr Le Risoli; Respondent: Mr Wickenden; Partie Publique: Attorney General; Respondent: Constable of St Helier
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
05 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Application
Outcome
Costs application granted in part
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Protective Costs Orders, Public Interest Litigation, Nomination Form Validity, Statutory Interpretation
Election Law Civil Procedure Public Law Costs Orders Protective Costs Orders Public Interest Litigation Nomination Form Validity Statutory Interpretation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Le Cornu

Applicant

Mr Le Risoli

Applicant

Mr Wickenden

Respondent

Attorney General

Partie Publique

Constable of St Helier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded against unsuccessful applicants in an election dispute raising issues of public importance
  2. 2 Whether costs should be paid by the applicants, the Parish, or out of public funds
  3. 3 Court's jurisdiction to order costs from public funds

Ratio Decidendi

Given the issue raised was of general public importance, applicants had no private pecuniary interest, and were not aware of protective costs orders, it would not be fair to order them to pay respondent's costs. However, it would also be unfair for the successful respondent to bear his own costs. The Court has jurisdiction to order costs out of public funds in such cases, and does so here.

Court Disposition

Costs application granted in part

Orders

  • Mr Wickenden's costs of and incidental to the applications of Mr Le Cornu and Mr Le Risoli to be paid out of public funds on the standard basis