header-logo header-logo

Ongoing protection?

08 October 2009 / Julia Marlow , Charles Brasted
Issue: 7388 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Charles Brasted & Julia Marlow review protective costs orders in judicial review

The perennial issue of the cost of litigation and its impact on access to justice is under the spotlight again in Lord Justice Jackson’s ongoing Civil Litigation Costs Review (the Jackson Review).

Nowhere is the issue of more acute importance than in the area of judicial review, where litigation is not simply a matter of determining the private rights of parties but an essential constitutional element of ensuring fair and lawful governance.

The availability of protective costs orders (PCOs) in judicial review proceedings has, since first considered in R v Lord Chancellor ex p Child Poverty Action Group [1999] 1 WLR (CPAG), become an important part of the judiciary’s response to such concerns. As PCOs have become more prevalent, so has the caselaw become more extensive and the governing principles more developed.

The recent case of Morgan & Ors v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd [2009] EWCA 107 Civ provides a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll