header-logo header-logo

Protective costs orders

20 November 2008
Issue: 7346 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

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 application

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

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll