Amanda Wadey explains why the Corner House procedure must be followed as much as possible
Protective costs orders (PCOs)
Refs: R (on the application on Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2008] All ER (D) 12 (Jul)
PCOs limit the amount a losing party must pay. They can be distinguished from costs capping orders that limit the amount a party can recover.
PCOs are more often made in judicial review proceedings where claimants with
limited resources pursue claims that may benefit others. There is currently no guidance in the CPR on the principles to be applied in determining whether or not such an order should be made or the procedure that should be followed. However, case law has determined that:
The issues raised should be of general importance.
It is in the public interest to resolve the issues raised.
The applicant has no private interest in the income.
If the PCO is not made, the proceedings will probably be discontinued
It is just and fair to make the order.
Facts of the case
Refs:
R (on the
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
