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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll