ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE COLLINS)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE BROOKE
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division)
LORD JUSTICE POTTER
LORD JUSTICE CLARKE
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF THE REFUGEE LEGAL CENTRE
Claimants/Appellants
-v-
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Defendant/Respondent
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR M FORDHAM AND MR N DE MARCO (instructed by the Public Law Project) appeared on behalf of the Appellants
MR P PATEL (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
J U D G M E N T
1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: This is a matter which came before me last week, when I made a protective costs order protecting the claimants, the Refugee Legal Centre, from any potential order for costs in relation to the application which was listed for hearing before the court this morning. I mention this because I gave an oral judgment in that case, which, like the present judgment, can certainly have any normal bar on the citation of a judgment of this kind lifted. That judgment sets out the particular circumstances of this particular appeal and this particular application. Anybody who wishes to know the nature of the order we are making today would be wise to read that judgment to see the peculiar nature of the problem that the court faced.
2. It is noteworthy that, in this matter, the lawyers for the Refugee Legal Centre have been acting pro bono throughout, so that the nature of the order that we are making today is not an order made in a case in which the appellants would be seeking an order for costs in their favour if they won, but seeking to be protected from such an order if they lost.
3. The Secretary of State has consented to the order being made today in relation to the substantive appeal, which is due to be heard in the first week of October, and the court is content to make the order. But I must make it completely clear that two members of the court have really not been involved in this matter at all. They were told yesterday that there was to be a consent order, so that this cannot in any way be regarded as a considered order of the Court of Appeal following full argument on the issues in the case. On the other hand, I am is satisfied that it is appropriate to make a consent order on this occasion.
4. Order: Consent order made to the effect that there will no be order for costs at the hearing of the substantive appeal. At the request of the appellants, the court directed that the list of Claimants' Authorities should be annexed as a Schedule to this judgment.
___________________________________________
CLAIMANT’S AUTHORITIES
___________________________________________
Authority | Relevance | |
0 | CPAG [1999] 1 WLR 347 | High Court pre-CPR decision on pre-emptive costs |
1 | Law Commission No. 226 (extract) 1994 | Report on Administrative law procedure |
2 | Australian Law Reform Commission (extract) 1995 | Australian report on cost allocation |
3 | Access to Justice Report (extract) 1996 | Report on CPR reforms |
4 | “Pre-Emptive Costs Orders” Scott [2001] CLQ 20, 298 | Commentary on pre-emptive costs |
5 | “Whose Cost the Public Interest?” Chakrabarti & ors [2003] PL 697 | Commentary on pre-emptive costs |
6 | “Pre-emptive Costs Orders” Markus & Westgate [1998] JR 76 | Commentary on pre-emptive costs |
7 | “Environmental Litigation – A Way Through The Maze?” Carnwath [1999] J.Env.L. Vol. 11 No. 1, 3 | Costs in environmental litigation – see section 5 |
8 | Environmental Justice Project Report (extract) 2004 & Coalition for Access to Justice for the Env. Briefing | Costs in environmental context |
9 | “Taking a Case to the E Ct HR” Leach (Blackstone) | Costs in the E Ct HR |
10 | “Funding Public Litigation” Peltz & Froese (2001) | Canadian article on public interest costs |
11 | Blackburn [1973] 1 QB 241 | Example of no costs order – see 265B |
12 | Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155 | Example of no-costs condition on leave to appeal – see 1164C |
13 | Davies [1987] 1 WLR 1136 | Recognising prospective costs jurisdiction |
14 | New Zealand Maori Council [1994] 1 AC 466 | Example of no costs order – see 485G-H |
15 | McDonald v Horn [1985] ICR 685 | Pre-emptive costs in pensions context |
16 | WDM [1995] 1 WLR 385 | Standing & public interest – see 395H-396A |
17 | Bolton MDC [1995] 1 WLR 1176 | Multiple sets of costs |
18 | Finnie (1997) 29 HLR 658 | Cross-undertaking in damages – see 661 |
19 | Shelter [1997] COD 1-77, 49 | No order for costs |
20 | Dixon [1998] Env LR 111 | Standing & public interest |
21 | Dyfed Powys Police (Unrep. 9 Nov 1998, HC) | Costs and licensing appeals |
22 | O’Byrne [2000] CP Rep 9 | Costs and joinder, see pp 5-6 |
23 | Village Residents Association Ltd [2000] 4 IR 321 | Irish pre-emptive costs, see pp 6-9 |
24 | Axa Equity [2000] Westlaw transcript 1720417 | Pre-emptive costs and pension schemes – see p. 11 |
25 | CND [2002] EWHC 2712 Admin | Pre-emptive cost-capping order – see para 6 |
26 | Munjaz [2003] 3 WLR 1505 | Issue-based costs & public interest – para 89 |
27 | C v FC [2004] 1 FLR 362 | Costs in children cases |
28 | Mount Cook [2003] EWCA Civ 1346 | Costs and permission hearings – see paras 76-77 |
29 | Davies [2004] 3 All 543 | Costs and coroners |
30 | King [2004] EWCA Civ 613 | Cost capping orders – see paras 78-109 |
31 | Hashtroodi [2004] 3 All ER 530 | CPR as a new era – see paras 12-16 |
32 | Morris [2004] EWHC 1199 Admin | Test case – see paras 15-23 |
33 | Okanagan Indian Band (2003) 114 CCR 2d 108 | Interim costs in Canadian public interest cases |