AC-2024-LON-002644 - [2025] EWHC 2761 (Admin)

I add this. Natural England has subjected the Claimants’ accounts and reserves policies, arrangements for legal teams, and arrangements for fundraising to close scrutiny. There were invitations to look at the financial information in a particular way, including some inferences. A considerable portion of a 3-hour hearing of the costs cap arguments – preceded by written submissions and pre-reading – were devoted to this exercise.

I can see how the mechanism of the Rule 27 Variation allows for that exercise to be invited. And I understand the approach that was taken. But I should be transparent. I was left feeling that it would not be a good thing for access to environmental justice if this sort of exercise were to become an established feature; still less a new norm. The court room during this hearing would, I think, have been a chilling place for responsible environmental NGOs, contemplating viable environmental protection judicial review claims. As I see it, the whole point of Rule 26 Caps is to have a degree of appropriate prospective reassurance. The idea of spiralling costs from satellite litigation, introducing uncertainty and costs risk, for the purpose of this kind of exercise, could clearly stand as a practical disincentive. And it could be hard for responsible lawyers to offer environmental NGO clients real, practical comfort. And so, all in all, I was left feeling that it was particularly appropriate that the Court should respond as robustly, straightforwardly and clearly as it legitimately could. I have tried to do that. It is not a coincidence.