Cpre (Kent) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Respondent)

In this appeal, the claimant, CPRE-Kent, a charity seeking to preserve the Kent countryside from inappropriate development, challenged the adoption of a planning policy in relation to a development site. CPRE-Kent's claim for statutory review was refused, and the case centered on the issue of costs incurred by the defendants and an interested party in preparing their acknowledgements of service and summary grounds contesting the claim. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision to award costs to each of the defendants and the interested party, finding that they were entitled to their reasonable and proportionate costs under the Civil Procedure Rules.

The Supreme Court found no error of law in the Court of Appeal's decision, and dismissed the appeal. The court considered the procedural innovations in the Civil Procedure Rules, which made it mandatory for a person served with a claim form who wishes to take part in a judicial review to file an acknowledgement of service. This made it necessary for the defendants and the interested party to incur costs in preparing and filing these documents. The court held that the procedural rules justified an exception from the general practice set out in Bolton, which limited the number of parties who could recover costs in a planning case.

The court also found that the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions in its decision. It was satisfied that the lower court had not erred in law in its construction of the relevant rules and Practice Directions. The Supreme Court observed that the Court of Appeal has primary responsibility for monitoring and controlling developments in practice, and it is ordinarily very slow to intervene. The court was not satisfied that this case presented an error of law of general public importance that would warrant intervention.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal's decision to award costs to the defendants and the interested party for preparing and filing their acknowledgements of service and summary grounds. The court found that there had been no error of law in the Court of Appeal's decision, and it was not appropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene in this case.