Earlier this month, the High Court handed down judgment in R (on the application of Bertoncini) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (and the interested party). The decision is worth noting, particularly for developers.
Bertoncini had been refused permission to proceed with his judicial review challenge and his cost cap had been increased from £10,000 to £20,000 in total. This was of particular importance to the interested party as it was unlikely that it would receive any costs if the lower limit were applied.
The court very shortly dismissed Bertoncini’s argument that the third party did not have the standing to apply for such a variation to the cost cap. The court went on to support the interested party’s costs award which included counsel’s and solicitor’s fees, plus the cost of an expert witness.
His Honour Judge Bird stated that the interested party should have their costs paid and to do otherwise would disincentivise participation in proceedings of this kind. The voice of the interested party is an important one.
The grant of planning permission can be challenged by way of judicial review. Judicial reviews are not cheap. The total legal cost of even the simplest of challenges can easily be in the range of £20,000 to £30,000, but the total costs are regularly much more than this when two or three sets of legal teams gear up for a full day’s hearing.
In the six weeks following the grant of planning permission, the local planning authority and the successful applicant face an uncertain period when judicial reviews can be commenced. Planning authorities with public funds are unlikely to welcome a challenge. However, it is harder for the applicant who, prior to this decision aced the real possibility that the costs of steps they take to protect their planning permission are unlikely to be recoverable.
Worse still, some claims are brought specifically to delay and frustrate planning permissions despite them having limited prospect of success. The judicial process offers some protection against un-meritorious challenges in the form of refusing permission and by flexing the cost cap in the event of frivolous claims.
The Aarhus Convention is a European wide convention which, among other things, promotes access to justice for environmental issues. By access to justice this primarily means that litigants are not put off commencing challenges due to the costs of such challenges.
The worst case outcome for the litigant bringing the challenge is losing and having to pay their own legal costs and those of the defendant council. This is where the Aarhus Convention comes into play. The judicial review of a planning permission is an environmental claim and Aarhus allows the challenger to take the benefit of costs cap. The cost cap manages the claimant’s cost exposure. By securing a costs cap the claimant knows how much they may have to pay out at the outset.
The starting point for a claimant’s cost cap is £5,000 if they are an individual and £10,000 if they are a business. If they lose they pay the defendant up to the cap, together with the costs of their own legal advisors. There is a reciprocal cap of £35,000 on what they can recover from the defendant should they win.
This default cost cap can be varied on application to the court. The court can increase or decrease the cap or remove it altogether if satisfied that to do so would not make the costs of the proceedings prohibitively expensive for the claimant. This requires, among other things, an assessment of the claimant’s financial resources which are disclosed by the claimant at the outset.
TLT has extensive experience in judicial reviews. If you would like to discuss your requirements, please get in touch.
This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at June 2020. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.
HR Horizon tracker Spring 2021Read more
TLT forms new partnership to support employee ownership growthRead more
Flexible working beyond the pandemicRead more
TLT expands role on national legal services framework for policeRead more
Automatically unfair dismissal and Covid safety concernsRead more
Failure to enhance Adoption Leave Pay not discriminatoryRead more
Employment Law Focus: TechnologyRead more
TLT appointed to Vodafone's global legal panelRead more
TLT appointed to sports and arts legal services panelRead more
Watch our video series for information on the legal issues that are affecting the real estate sector. Each...Read more
Helping you navigate your business through the risks and opportunities that Brexit will bring.Read more
The way people shop is constantly evolving, from the growth of online and the changing use of stores...Read more
The widespread disruption and closure of businesses caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent national and local lockdowns has brought into sharp focus the question of available insurance cover for losses under...Read more
The pandemic has had a deep and long-lasting effect on the leisure, food & drink sector, forcing operators to embrace new ways of attracting and servicing customers.Read more
The pandemic has forced the majority of the workforce into a world of remote working. As a result, our cities are evolving.Read more
There's a growing demand for retailers to do more to attract the Purple Pound – the collective spending power of disabled shoppers, estimated to be worth around £274bn. We look at the opportunities, the legal issues and...Read more
Green finance is gaining speed, driven by global climate change pressures and the recognition of the vital role which sustainability plays in a resilient financial services sector.Read more
Keep on top of the employment law issues that matter most to you and your business with our new podcast.Read more