header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 October 2010 / Deirdre Lyons , Colleen Theron
Issue: 7438 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Protective costs orders

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

PCOs are not a green light for environmental challenges. Deirdre Lyons & Colleen Theron explain why

Protective costs orders (PCOs) are intended to promote access to justice. They are often sought in judicial review applications containing a public interest element where claimants with limited resources are pursuing a claim that may benefit others.

R (Corner House) v SoS for Trade and Industry [2005] 4 All ER 1 stated that PCOs should only be made in exceptional circumstances, where: 

  • the issues raised are of public importance;
  • the public interest requires that those issues should be resolved;
  • the applicant has no private interest in the outcome of the case;
  • having regard to the financial resources of the applicant, the respondent(s) and to the amount of costs that are likely to be involved it is fair and just to make the order;
  • if the order is not made, the applicant will probably discontinue the proceedings and will be acting reasonably in doing so.

In R (Garner) v Elmbridge Borough Council [2010] EWCA

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll