R (Edwards) v Environment Agency (No 2)
Applying the ruling of the Court of Justice, the Supreme Court held that a costs order of about 25,000 pounds against an environmental claimant was not prohibitively expensive.
Facts
Following the ruling of the Court of Justice in Edwards and Pallikaropoulos, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the costs ordered against Ms Pallikaropoulos in her unsuccessful appeal to the House of Lords, which had been assessed at about 25,000 pounds after the costs officers had considered her means, were prohibitively expensive within the meaning of the directive.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the costs order was not prohibitively expensive. Lord Carnwath said that the court must consider both whether the costs were objectively unreasonable and whether they exceeded the claimant's financial resources. Ms Pallikaropoulos had not provided evidence that the amount was beyond her means, and the amount was not objectively unreasonable, taking into account the complexity of the case and the importance of the issues. The court said that the relevant protection should be considered at the outset of proceedings, so that the claimant knew where she stood.
Related cases on public participation, information and access to justice
- Austin v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1012, [2015] 1 WLR 62
- Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland v Bezirksregierung Arnsberg (Trianel) Case C-115/09, [2011] ECR I-3673
- Commission v United Kingdom (Costs in environmental cases) Case C-530/11, EU:C:2014:67
- Edwards and Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency Case C-260/11, EU:C:2013:221
- Fish Legal v Information Commissioner Case C-279/12, EU:C:2013:853
- Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Brown Bears) Case C-240/09, [2011] ECR I-1255
- Morgan v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 107
- Office of Communications v Information Commissioner Case C-71/10, [2011] ECR I-7205
Studying environmental law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
