The Court held that a not-for-profit environmental organisation that brought unsuccessful judicial review proceedings in the public interest was not exempt from a costs order in favour of the successful second defendant. While the Court accepted the proceedings were brought in the public interest, were not frivolous, raised arguable questions of law, and were conducted appropriately, these factors did not constitute a sufficient basis to deny the successful defendant compensation for its costs. The plaintiff was ordered to pay 35% of the second defendant's overall costs, reflecting the Court's assessment of the relative scope of the cases brought by the two plaintiffs whose proceedings were heard together but not formally consolidated.
The full text is available to signed-in members.