|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Goodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire & Luton & Anor  EWCA Civ 1172 (12 October 2005)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 1172
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
THE HON. MR JUSTICE RICHARDS
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
| RITA GOODSON
|- and -
|H.M. CORONER FOR BEDFORDSHIRE and LUTON
|- and -
|LUTON & DUNSTABLE HOSPITAL NHS TRUST
Mr. Philip Havers Q.C. and Mrs. Leslie Millin (instructed by Capsticks) for the second respondent
(The first respondent did not appear and was not represented)
Hearing date : 21st September 2005
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Moore-Bick:
"The essential characteristics of a public law challenge are that it raises public law issues which are of general importance, where the applicant has no private interest in the outcome of the case. It is obvious that many, indeed most judicial review challenges, do not fall into the category of public interest challenges so defined. This is because, even if they do raise issues of general importance, they are cases in which the applicant is seeking to protect some private interest of his or her own."
"We would therefore restate the governing principles in these terms.
(1) A protective costs order may be made at any stage of the proceedings, on such conditions as the court thinks fit, provided that the court is satisfied that: (i) the issues raised are of general public importance; (ii) the public interest requires that those issues should be resolved; (iii) the applicant has no private interest in the outcome of the case; (iv) having regard to the financial resources of the applicant and the respondent(s) and to the amount of costs that are likely to be involved, it is fair and just to make the order; and (v) if the order is not made the applicant will probably discontinue the proceedings and will be acting reasonably in so doing.
(2) If those acting for the applicant are doing so pro bono this will be likely to enhance the merits of the application for a PCO.
(3) It is for the court, in its discretion, to decide whether it is fair and just to make the order in the light of the considerations set out above."
Lord Justice Chadwick:
Lord Justice Ward: