Pressure grows for reform of access to environmental justice

15 September 2010 by

Hard on the heels of the UN-ECE Aarhus Compliance Committee (see my previous post), Lord Justice Sullivan’s Working Party on Access to Environmental Justice has similarly condemned the current system under which judicial review claimants face an onerous costs burden when they advance claims which do not ultimately succeed.

The Working Party reported initially in May 2008 on access to justice in environmental cases, and was critical of the current costs regime. Its current focus is rather narrower that the recent conclusions of the Aarhus Compliance Committee, but potentially more effective thanks to that focus. It reviews the rather fuzzy case-law on Protective Costs Orders, fashioned by the judges to help Claimants against unlimited costs liabilities. The report can be read here.

The report acknowledges that the test for the grant of a PCO in such cases ultimately comes down to judicial discretion. That, says the ECJ in C-427/07 (Commission v. Ireland), is inadequate when measured against the standards required by the Aarhus Convention that environmental litigation not be prohibitively expensive. The Court of Appeal in Morgan has also made it clear that it is reluctant to develop PCO case-law further – this, it says, is for Parliament or the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.

So, based upon these cases, PCOs are not the way forward, says the Working Party, or at least not without some specific legislative intervention. They do not deliver sufficient certainty to those considering whether to risk their money on an administrative challenge, and they generate their own satellite litigation.

Where then, asks the Working Party? QuOCS, or for those not au fait with Jackson-speak, Qualified One-way Costs Shifting, is the answer. The Claimant does not pay if he loses. The Defendant pays if the Claimant wins. Hence, the one-way shift.

In effect, the Working Party adopts the substance of the proposal, made by Jackson LJ in his January 2010 review of Civil Litigation Costs, that costs in all judicial review cases should be determined by QuOCS. Various reasons are advanced for this, but the major one is the requirement to obtain permission for judicial review, which operates as a potent filter against duff claims. Hence, once a claim gets permission, it is not unreasonable to accept that the traditional costs rules may be modified – in order to meet the requirement of the Aarhus Convention that such proceedings not be prohibitively expensive.

Like many things, there is an exception to this proposed rule in favour of claimants. Jackson suggested that the exception should apply where it was reasonable to make the claimant pay – adopting wording used for many years in the legal aid legislation. Sullivan cogently points out the difficulties with the Jackson wording. Ultimately, it brings one back to judicial discretion, and the inability of this discretion to comply with the Aarhus obligations. In particular, application of such a test away from the context of impecunious legally-aided litigants would involve time-consuming and expensive consideration of the means of parties after the case but before their liabilities are determined. This is the wrong way round. Many people would be prepared to bring sensible challenges as long as they knew the downside before they started. Telling them that (a) they have the benefit of QuOCS but (b) they do not keep it if it is reasonable for them to pay the defendant’s costs achieves little comfort except for the true gambler.

This conclusion of the Working Party was perhaps guided by some of the problems thrown up by the case of R (Garner) v. Elmbridge BC [2010] EWCA Civ 1006, decided at the end of July and very shortly before the Working Party reported. Sullivan LJ, presiding in the Court of Appeal, was faced with a proposed means inquiry as to whether the claimant should get the benefit of a PCO. The Court decided that the question was principally an objective one, namely whether claimants in general were reasonably deterred from mounting the challenge, rather than looking at whether this claimant was likely to be deterred. The Court was also diffident about pronouncing on the Aarhus issues shortly before Aarhus itself did so (their provisional findings followed within a month) and also before a similar issue reached the Supreme Court via Edwards v The Environment Agency and Others [2006] EWCA Civ 877.

Sullivan’s proposal is that the claimant should not pay the other side’s (or sides’) costs in a claim for judicial review unless the claimant “has acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings.” This gets the balance right. Means become irrelevant. In a typical case where a claimant gets permission to seek judicial review, it will be mighty difficult to show that he or she was unreasonable in proceeding with the claim if a High Court judge, after consideration of the defendant’s case in its acknowledgement of service, has thought that the case is properly arguable.  One can conceive of cases where there has been gross non-disclosure to the Court and to the defendant but these will be rare indeed.

But, as Sullivan and his team acknowledge, this change towards a QuOCS regime should not be done or undone by incremental judicial pronouncements. It involves a rule change, under which the costs rules in CPR 44 are amended.  Equally, as Jackson and Sullivan recommend, this change should not limited to environmental cases where the change is driven by Aarhus. Rightly, they, and the Court of Appeal when considering PCO applications, have been unwilling to create some special environmental costs rules when the costs deterrent problem applies right across the range of judicial review. The prospect of sterile arguments about whether a claim is an environmental one must have deterred any contrary idea.

As observed before, any such reform will not be high up on the governmental hit list. However, events are conspiring against the status quo. The Aarhus Committee are disapproving. Leading members of the Court of Appeal are sympathetic to the costs problem. The Supreme Court will be hearing an appeal on Aarhus principles shortly. Perhaps the moment has come to bend to rather than resist this pressure.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism negligence Neuberger neuroscience news new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing Obituary Occupy London Offensive Speech oil spill olympics open justice OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal parole board patents Pathway Students Pensions Personal Injury personality rights perversity PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police powers police state police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope portal possession proceedings post office PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention pregnancy press press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty quango quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation Radmacher rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg sumption super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: