0370 270 6000

Supreme Court rules on environmental costs considerations

12 December 2013

The Supreme Court has ruled on appropriate costs following an ECJ reference as to the test to be applied to ensure that environmental judicial reviews were not prohibitively expensive.

A number of significant points could be extracted from the ECJ decision:

1. The test was not purely subjective and should not exceed the financial resources of the claimant, or “appear objectively unreasonable”

2. No definitive guidance has been given as to what is “objectively unreasonable”

3. The Court can take account of the “merits” of the case, including the prospect of success, importance to the claimant and environment, complexity of the relevant law, and potentially frivolous nature of the claim at different stages

4. That fact that the claimant pursued the claim does not determine the issue of costs

5. The same criteria applied on appeal as at first instance

This provides guidance when making costs submissions to the Court but whether costs are “prohibitively expensive” in any given case is still far from clear.

Related opinions

Homes England partners with local authorities to boost the levelling up agenda

Homes England, the government’s housing accelerator, has partnered with two local authorities, Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Association of South Essex Local Authorities, in a new Strategic Place Partnership (SPP) which is designed to align with the government’s levelling up agenda by delivering new homes in the regions.

View blog

80% hours for 100% pay? That’ll do nicely

As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.

View blog

Right to Work Checks: Changes from 6 April 2022

From 6 April 2022, right to work checks on all migrant or settled prospective employees must be online and checks on British or Irish nationals will be manual (free) or digital (charged for).

View blog

Wide interpretation of “detriment” caused victimisation claim to succeed

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in the case of Warburton v The Chief Constable.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up