header-logo header-logo

21 October 2010 / Deirdre Lyons , Colleen Theron
Issue: 7438 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Protective costs orders

PCOs are not a green light for environmental challenges. Deirdre Lyons & Colleen Theron explain why

Protective costs orders (PCOs) are intended to promote access to justice. They are often sought in judicial review applications containing a public interest element where claimants with limited resources are pursuing a claim that may benefit others.

R (Corner House) v SoS for Trade and Industry [2005] 4 All ER 1 stated that PCOs should only be made in exceptional circumstances, where: 

  • the issues raised are of public importance;
  • the public interest requires that those issues should be resolved;
  • the applicant has no private interest in the outcome of the case;
  • having regard to the financial resources of the applicant, the respondent(s) and to the amount of costs that are likely to be involved it is fair and just to make the order;
  • if the order is not made, the applicant will probably discontinue the proceedings and will be acting reasonably in doing so.

In R (Garner) v Elmbridge Borough Council [2010] EWCA

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll