Edwards & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Environment Agency & Ors

[2006] EWCA Civ 1138

Case details

Case citations
[2006] EWCA Civ 1138
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
19 July 2006
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Civil procedure Costs
Keywords
appeal dismissed respondent’s notice consequential orders costs Legal Services Commission costs judge permission to appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed (consequential costs orders made; permission to appeal refused)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

After dismissing an appeal and an appeal brought by respondent’s notice, the court may reserve consequential orders and determine them on written submissions. The court may allocate costs between parties and the Legal Services Commission, leave questions of liability and quantification to a costs judge, and impose a costs cap where appropriate.

Factual background

The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed the appellants’ appeal and the respondent’s appeal on the respondent’s notice. It reserved consequential orders, including costs, for later determination after written submissions. The court then considered those submissions. The first appellant did not attend or make oral submissions; the second appellant and respondents consented to determination on the papers.

Held

  1. The court determined the reserved consequential orders on the written submissions.
  2. The respondents were awarded 70 per cent of their costs on the standard basis.
  3. Costs incurred before 1.00 pm on 8 February 2006 were payable by the first appellant and/or the Legal Services Commission. Liability and any amount payable by the first appellant were to be determined by a costs judge on application under Regulation 10 of the Community Legal Services Costs Regulations 2000.
  4. Costs incurred after that time were payable in equal shares by the first appellant and/or the Legal Services Commission and the second appellant. The second appellant’s liability was capped at £2,000.
  5. There was no order as to the interested parties’ costs. The second appellant’s application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 26 June 2006, the appellants’ appeal and the respondents’ appeal on the respondent’s notice were dismissed. Consequential orders were reserved.
  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 19 July 2006, the court determined the reserved costs and permission applications on written submissions.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
appeal dismissed (consequential costs orders made; permission to appeal refused)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.