AC-2024-LON-002558 - [2025] EWHC 2278 (Admin)

In my judgment, the Aarhus costs protection ordered by Mr Kolinsky KC should remain.

Whilst it is acknowledged on both sides that there was (and still is) no statement of financial resources filed, equally the protection is clearly granted in a previous order of the court. The application which led to it did not fulfil a prior procedural requirement, but the court has the power to dispense with it. In addition Ms Nevin’s submission is inviting the court to disturb a previous order of the court without a properly made application to vary it. This fact differentiates the present circumstances from the case of Wesson, where the court was being asked for the first time to rule on the availability of Aarhus costs protection with no antecedent order in place.

As to the applicable amount, I conclude that it is appropriate to apply the default costs figures in CPR 46.26. The Claimant has not asked for any variation to these default figures. The Claimant is acting as an individual and so the figure applicable to the Claimant’s costs is £5,000 (see CPR 46.26(2)(a)). It is clear that the Claimant is not acting “on behalf of” anybody else, as that term is used in CPR 46.26(2)(a). The reference in the witness statement to which Ms Nevin drew my attention is saying no more than that others beyond just the Claimant will have a common interest in the outcome. The claim was commenced by the Claimant as an individual and that is how the case has been conducted throughout.

It follows from this that Aarhus costs protection continues to apply. The costs cap for the Claimant is £5,000 and a reciprocal cap of £35,000 applies to the Council.

In light of my findings on both the substantive claim and the satellite costs issue I now invite the parties to agree an appropriate form of order for my approval.