Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The supreme court has cleared the way for the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to cut the cost of environmental litigation. In line with the doctrine that environmental litigation must not be ‘prohibitively expensive’ under Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, the supreme court appeal committee ruled that the decision to refuse a claimant a protective costs order by the House of Lords was subjective and that doubt had subsequently been cast on that approach by case law, meaning that the matter should be reopened. A reference was also made to the ECJ given the uncertainty as to the current position on protective costs.
Though the decision by the supreme judges has only stayed the costs order pending a preliminary ruling from the ECJ it is hoped by environmental groups that in the future protective costs orders will be easier to obtain. If that is the outcome of the reference to the ECJ, it is possible that more speculative and boundary pushing environmental litigation will ensue.
Some schools have hit the headlines this week for their decisions to offer only vegetarian meals. But would a similar approach extend to the workplace?
View blog
As more Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are merged (or demerged) to boost efficiency and accountability, how does that process impact on the employees?
Partner
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up