Prohibitive costs – further thoughts

25 October 2012 by

R (Edwards & another) v. Environment Agency, Opinion of A-G Kokott, CJEU, 18 October 2012, read opinion

In my post of yesterday, about this opinion of the Adocate-General, I set out the context in which the Supreme Court was asking for guidance from the CJEU on how to provide for costs in environmental cases, given that the UK is committed by Treaty obligations (the Aarhus Convention) and specific provisions of EU law to ensure that environmental cases are not “prohibitively expensive.”

As I put it, the first and obvious question is – prohibitive to whom? No litigation may be prohibitively expensive to Roman Abramovich. Any costs liability may deter someone on state benefits.

Towards the middle of my previous post, I described how A-G Kokott then faced the Abramovich v. person on benefits question. English lawyers are very fond of the “is it subjective or objective?” question. The Advocate-General’s answer to the Supreme Court’s question was – a bit of both. The European Commission was arguing that there was an objective standard – would an ordinary person be deterred by the costs in issue? The Advocate-General recognised that environmental cases fell into a specific category; in a sentence redolent of Lord Hope last week (see my post):

Recognition of the public interest in environmental protection is especially important since there may be many cases where the legally protected interests of particular individuals are not affected or are affected only peripherally. However, the environment cannot defend itself before a court, but needs to be represented, for example by active citizens or non-governmental organisations.

But then she made it a lot more complicated. And thinking about it quite a bit further, the answer is even less clear than my initial thoughts on her opinion. So those that remain interested might wish to read this revised chunk of text.

A. A claimant may be being purely public-spirited. Equally, he or she may be defending their economic interests. The latter ought to bear higher risks than the former. But that does not mean that the presence of someone pursuing their own individual interests means that you disregard any public interests in the case; the A-G gives the example of an airport where there might be a very wide group only a few of whom may be suing. So a court has to titrate individual interests against wider public interests.

B. The prospects of success may be relevant.

In a perfect world, all of this may be fine. But how do you come up with a system which does not in practice deter people from even starting litigation. The UK has evolved its own mechanism in an attempt to address this – the Protective Costs Order. The idea is at the beginning of proceedings the courts set a figure which the claimant will have to pay if he or she loses. Current thinking from the Ministry of Justice is that this figure should be £5,000 in environmental cases. If the claimant gets such a PCO, he or she can then decide – yes I will sue, no, I won’t. The A-G thought that the PCO system was “in principle an appropriate element in the implementation of Article 9(4) of the Convention…” The obvious point for a claimant is that you know where you stand before you start.

But the problem with the A-G’s picture of a PCO is that getting her sort of PCO is about as complicated as winning the case at the end of the trial.

The Defendants may argue that a claimant’s means will be important in this equation;  [45] of the opinion contemplates taking into account the claimant’s economic interest in the proceedings; he may be seeking to protect the value of his house from pollution or the encroachment of development. But not every challenge involves those interests, and as the Opinion emphasises, it is extremely important not to stifle the pure environmental case in which there is no private interest in play.  

So in such a pure environmental case, without the confusing factor of a claimant’s direct economic interest, is the individual claimant’s means relevant, or not? Or should there be some benchmark sum above which no individual claimant should be expected to pay? 

In my view, there is no straight answer from the A-G to this question. She tells us that the individual claimant may rely on the fact that his or her means would deter him from proceeding. But that does not exclude the possibility that the general level of costs in such cases might deter people who theoretically could afford such costs, and hence the question of prohibitive costs should be regarded objectively – would it deter an ordinary person, in which the actual means of the claimant become irrelevant. There is a good deal of discussion of various pointers to and fro on this question, but her conclusion sits fairly firmly on the fence:

49.      The answer to the second question is therefore that in examining whether costs of proceedings are prohibitive, account must be taken of the objective and subjective circumstances of the case, with the aim of enabling wide access to justice. The insufficient financial capacity of the claimant may not constitute an obstacle to proceedings. It is necessary always, hence including when determining the costs which can be expected of claimants having capacity to pay, to take due account of the public interest in environmental protection in the case at issue.

– remembering that the second question was whether the prohibitive expense of the litigation should be decided on an objective or subjective basis or using a combination of both. 

The other way of reading the A-G is that nothing she says casts any doubt on the objective standard being the appropriate one, and some of her reasoning supports that position; indeed, in the Supreme Court’s original reference, that was their initial views on the merits.

The A-G also says that the public interest of the case will be important (but according to whom – the claimant or the defendant, and ascertained how?). The merits of the claim will be important (ditto, and after what length of inquiry?) If  a PCO is given at the permission stage in a judicial review, this may be not too onerous, but in other claims (including statutory challenges where there is no permission hurdle), this is not so straightforward.

Alert readers will have predicted the next question – how do you make the getting of a PCO itself not prohibitively expensive? Because if you do not do so, you deter people from bringing potentially meritorious cases just as much as you do if the costs of trial are prohibitive. Put the other way round, if you make the getting of a PCO fairly straightforward, you encourage claimants to apply for them and defendants to abide the result -without throwing the kitchen sink at the case. The more nuanced you make the process, the more you encourage defendants to try and stifle the case – at birth.”

Sometimes the answers of the A-G and the CJEU foreclose any real argument when the matter gets back to the domestic court. That is highly improbable here. So, as I said before, there is likely to be plenty to argue about when it returns to the Supreme Court.

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

Related posts

1 comment;

  1. Andrew says:

    I appreciate that the Convention is there and we must abide by it. But it is yet another reminder that any form of litigation in which claimants who lose cannot be made to pay costs is nothing more than legalised blackmail.

    Which is why the no-adverse-costs rule in Tribunals should be scrapped. And the LSC and EHRC should pay the cosrts of a successful and uninsured defendant if they back the claimant.

    That’s true equal justice, and I know there are some reading this who will disagree!

Comments are closed.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 care homes 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 consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing 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 diplomatic relations 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 Facial Recognition 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 hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office 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 nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: