Where the overall winner has failed on a number of issues, Judges should consider the extra costs associated with the failed issues, be explicit about the proportions of time spent on the successful and failed points respectively, and attempt to quantify that, as a starting point. However, the Judge still had to stand back, look at the matter globally, and consider the extent to which it was just to deprive the successful party of costs. That involves a discretionary judgment. It is not a mechanical exercise. See Terracorp v Mistry (2020) EWHC 2623 (Ch).

In Gathercole v Suffolk County Council (2020) EWCA Civ 1179 relief was refused where planning permission, for a new village primary school near an airfield, had been granted without compliance with the public sector equality duty, in respect of the effect of aircraft noise on children with protected characteristics, but it was highly likely that the planning decision would have been the same if there had been compliance. The environmental statement in respect of alternative sites, was adequate, but even if it had not been that would not have had any substantive effect on the planning decision.

In TBD v Simons (2020) EWCA Civ 1182 the appeals raised important issues as to (1) the interpretation of search orders, (2) the granting of permission to bring committal proceedings, and (3) litigation privilege. On search orders, see paras 127-175, imaging orders, paras 176-193, applications for permission to bring committal proceedings, paras 230-234, and litigation privilege, including waiver and the iniquity exception, from para 254.
Read more »

In R ( McCourt) v Parole Board (2020) EWHC 2320 a Divisional Court approve, at para 31, as an accurate high-level summary of the law a passage in Auburn, Moffett & Sharland on Judicial Review, including that the Courts have adopted an increasIngly liberal approach to both individuals and groups bringing judicial review claims. The applicant does not have to claim to be more affected by the decision than anyone else : para 32. Whether an applicant has a sufficient interest to provide standing to bring judicial review proceedings depends on what the rule of law requires in the particular context of the decision under challenge: paras 41-43. A suitably expert organisation may be better placed to present arguments about the impact of policy on an affected class as a whole, rather than an individual in particular: para 43.