Greenpeace Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor

The Court affirmed that a judge exercising judicial review jurisdiction has a broad discretion to award costs where an application for judicial review is refused. The Court will not overturn such a discretionary order absent a clear error of principle. The Court declined to grant permission to appeal to the House of Lords where the issues were narrow, historic, or did not raise a sufficient prospect of further appellate development.

This appeal arises from a refused application for judicial review heard by Scott Baker J in the Administrative Court. The appellant sought relief against the Secretary of State and Customs and Excise, and sought interim relief against an interested party, Alan Thomas Craig Ltd. The High Court refused leave and made an order as to costs in respect of the interested party. Greenpeace appealed the costs order and sought permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The Court of Appeal heard submissions and delivered a single judgment refusing relief and addressing costs and permission to appeal.

1. Outcome: The Court dismissed Greenpeace's appeals and applications. Costs were ordered against the appellant for both the Secretary of State and Customs and Excise, and the detailed assessment of those costs was ordered if not agreed.
2. The judge below (Scott Baker J) had been entitled to exercise his discretion to award costs against the appellant in respect of the interested party. The Court of Appeal would not interfere absent a demonstrated error in principle.
3. The interested party's application for costs in this court was refused. The Court concluded that, once the appellant clarified that it no longer pursued relief against the interested party in this court, there was no need to make a costs order in their favour for the appeal. Participation by the interested party was a matter for them.
4. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. The Court observed the issues were largely historic and relatively narrow. Public interest alone did not require that this Court grant permission to appeal. It was appropriate to leave any application for permission to the House of Lords.
5. Practical orders: costs in favour of the Secretary of State and Customs and Excise (detailed assessment if not agreed); no costs order in favour of the interested party in this Court; appeal against the costs order made below dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): judgment delivered by Mummery LJ (with Laws LJ and Dyson LJ) refusing the application and ordering costs in favour of the Secretary of State and Customs and Excise. Detailed assessment ordered if parties cannot agree.
• High Court, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): Scott Baker J refused leave to bring the judicial review and made an order for costs in favour of the interested party; that order was challenged on appeal to this Court.