An award of COSTS is NOT intended to provide compensation for loss in the same way as awards of DAMAGES in tort or for breach of contract. In relation to TORT, the purpose of damages is to place the successful claimant, so far as money can achieve, in the position he or she would have been in if he or she had not been injured by the wrongful act. In cases of BREACH OF CONTRACT, the award of damages is aimed at putting the claimant in as good a position as he or she would have been in if the contract had been performed. In contrast to an award of damages, by which the Court is giving effect to a party’s legal right to reparation, an ORDER FOR COSTS is a DISCRETIONARY remedy ( with a statutory basis). The Court has regard to ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES. It is NOT an attempt to restore a party to the position it would have been in if it had not had to litigate to assert its rights. A Costs Order is “very different” from an award of damages. The Court is not addressing loss. The award of costs is not an entitlement. There is an entitlement to reparation of loss. So stated in PROCESS & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2025) UKSC 36.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
October 23rd, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalIn CG FRY & SON LTD v SoS for Housing, Communities and Local Government (2025) UKSC 35 the Supreme Court holds that where a development has a potential impact on a PROTECTED SITE under the CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2017 ( and the HABITATS DIRECTIVE as “assimilated law” and its strict “ precautionary approach”), an appropriate Environmental IMPACT ASSESSMENT under Regulation 63 can be carried out at the stage of a Decision (1) to give reserved matters approval or (2) to discharge conditions attached to such an approval where that would result in an authorisation for the project to proceed, BUT LPAs cannot at later stages of the planning process that had been approved in principle at the outline stage. Lord Sales also addressed RAMSAR SITES, designated under the RAMSAR CONVENTION and Section 57A of the WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, and protected pursuant to the NPPF.
HOMELESSNESS
October 23rd, 2025 by James Goudie KC in HousingIn WANDSWORTH LBC v YOUNG (2025) EWCA Civ 1336 Newey LJ addressed a local authority’s NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS to its tenants after ending its MAIN HOUSING DUTY under Section 193, as amended, in Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
RATIONALITY REVIEW
October 23rd, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn R(SAG) v WINCHMORE SCHOOL (2025) EWCA Civ 1335 Edis LJ at paras 44-46 described as “ compelling” Chamberlain J’s analysis in R(KP) v SoS FOR FOREIGN, COMMONWEALTH & DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRS (2025) EWHC 370(Admin) at paras 55-57 and 60/61 of (1) the nature of rationality review and (2) the relevance of the standard of review, as regards PROCESS IRRATIONALITY and OUTCOME IRRATIONALITY, and ANXIOUS SCRUTINY.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
October 21st, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationAdequate alternative remedies to Judicial Review are addressed in R ( AMMORI ) v SSHD ( 92025) EWCA Civ 1311 at paras 42-49.
REVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
October 21st, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureThe UK Government has on 20 October 2025 published its Response to the Office for Environmental Protection’s Report on improving the natural environment in England from January 2025.
WALES
October 21st, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Elections and BylawsA Welsh Government Consultation, published on 20 October 2025, seeks views, by 12 January 2026, on proposed changes to Welsh Local ELECTION RULES.
FORFEITURE OF LEASE
October 21st, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and ServicesThe approach to, and steps to be taken towards, the forfeiture of a valuable lease for breach of covenant, the purpose of proceedings under Section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, and the requirements for a Notice under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, are set out by Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President, in CALMAN v STACK HOUSE RESIDENTS ( OXTED ) LTD (2025) UKUT 342 (LC) at paras 5 and 42.
SUSPENSION ON ENTERING INTO CONTRACT
October 21st, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsThe approach to be taken by the Court when deciding whether or not to lift an automatic suspension on entering into a procured and regulated contact is set out by Eyre J at paras 27-36 inc in INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE UK LTD v SoS for DEFENCE (2025) EWHC 2634 ( TCC ).