Environment analysis: The High Court held that Mr Peart’s judicial review challenging the allocation of Single Payment Scheme subsidies qualified as an Aarhus Convention claim because the governing subsidy regime was directly linked to agricultural and environmental cross-compliance, bringing the challenge within Article 9(3). Applying HM Treasury v Global Feedback Ltd, the court distinguished legislation merely producing environmental effects from law that itself regulates environmental matters. Aarhus costs protection therefore applied under CPR 46.26, while the alternative costs capping application was dismissed. The decision is significant for challenges involving agricultural support schemes and confirms that practitioners should identify and contest Aarhus status early, while recognising that novelty or wider interest alone will not satisfy the section 88 public-interest threshold. Produced in partnership with Stephen Sykes, head of Environment, Climate and Sustainability Law at Capital Law.

Private Client analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed the Legal Ombudsman’s appeal and restored the ombudsman’s decision awarding compensation to a client arising from inadequate handling of vulnerability, litigation capacity and costs information. The court held that the High Court had scrutinised the ombudsman’s reasoning too legalistically and had failed to read the decision fairly and as a whole. The judgment reaffirms the broad evaluative discretion conferred on the Legal Ombudsman under section 137 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) and confirms that judicial review of ombudsman decisions remains confined to orthodox public law principles rather than a merits review.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Anil Virji, head of costs, and Jon Lord, senior cost lawyer, at Civil and Commercial Costs Lawyers, consider Ong and others v Ping and examine the court’s approach to costs consequences of separate representation.

This Practice Note considers the relevant Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) which deal with the court’s powers regarding costs where a party has failed to comply with an order for mediation or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process or unreasonably refused to engage in ADR. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Costs consequences of refusing to consider ADR in civil proceedings—illustrative decisions, which summarises the key decisions illustrating the court’s approach in this regard. For information on the parties’ obligations to consider ADR and the courts’ powers with respect to ordering or encouraging the parties to consider ADR, both before and during any litigation, see Practice Notes: Court powers to order or encourage ADR in civil proceedings and Court powers to order or encourage ADR in civil proceedings—key and illustrative decisions. Changes to the CPR The CPR were amended with effect from 1 October 2024 to include additional powers for the court to order parties to use ADR and additional guidance when making costs orders where parties have

An unreasonable refusal to mediate or engage in some other form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process may render the refusing party liable to costs penalties, even if they are successful in the litigation. This Practice Note provides illustrative decisions of the court’s approach when considering what costs order to make (if any) where a party has failed to comply with an order for mediation or other ADR process or unreasonably refused to engage in ADR. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Costs consequences of refusing to consider ADR in civil proceedings, which includes guidance on the principles that the court will take into account in this respect and the relevant CPR provisions which deal with the courts’ powers to make such a costs order. For information on the parties’ obligations to consider ADR and the courts’ powers with respect to ordering or encouraging the parties to consider ADR, both before and during any litigation, see Practice Notes: Court powers to order or encourage

This Practice Note provides information on notable developments in costs from 1 January 2026 to present. It provides information on Court of Appeal decisions to include the practical implications of those decisions. It also provides information on Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) updates and minutes of the meetings of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) where those meetings are of particular relevance for costs. Note, this Practice Note does not apply to costs developments that are only relevant to personal injury cases and have no wider application to dispute resolution cases generally. Court of Appeal decisions in 2026 The table below notes key Court of Appeal decisions on costs and Part 36 from 1 January 2026 noting the practical significance of these decisions. It also provides links to further reading in respect of these decisions. Case details Facts Decision Practical significance Orton v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2026] EWCA Civ 102531 July 2026 The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant arising from a credit agreement and associated payment

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is based on provisions revoked on 1 April 2013. It is archive and therefore for historical purposes only. This Practice Note covers costs estimates which must be filed at court and served on the parties (and on the client), under practice direction 44, para 6. It should be considered in conjunction with the following Practice Notes: • Own client costs information [Archived] which deals with the costs information which must be provided to the client, under the 2011 Solicitors Code of Conduct • Costs Management in Mercantile and TCC courts—pilot scheme. There is currently a costs management pilot scheme running in the Mercantile and TCC courts in which parties have to provide a costs budget at the first CMC What is an estimate of costs? Definitions An 'estimate of costs' is defined in the Costs practice direction as: (i) an estimate of the: • base costs (including disbursements) already incurred, and • base costs (including disbursements) to be incurred which a party, if successful, intends to seek to recover from any other

General rule on costs in judicial review The general rule in relation to costs in judicial review, as in other proceedings, is that costs follow the event. However, pre-emptive cost orders can be applied for. The costs of, and incidental to, all proceedings in the High Court are at the discretion of the court. The High Court has, by statute, discretion to award costs on a judicial review application. The court has discretion on whether to make a decision on costs which is different from the general rule, taking into account all the circumstances including the overriding objective. The extent of the court’s discretion is: • whether costs are payable by one party to another • the amount of those costs, and • when they are to be paid Costs will follow the event unless in the circumstances of the case the court considers that some other order, in relation to costs, such as a pre-emptive costs order, should be made, for example for the claimant

The question of who will pay the costs of judicial proceedings, and how much they might be, is one which will inevitably be central to considerations of whether to bring a claim, and whether and how to defend one. The general rule is that the costs of judicial review proceedings are at the court’s discretion (section 51(1)–(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981)). This general rule is subject to provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules and case law, and the particular facts and circumstances arising in a given case. It is usual (but by no means certain) that costs will follow the event, ie the winner will ordinarily have their costs paid by the loser. The costs concerned are those ‘of and incidental to’ the proceedings. A defendant in a judicial review claim will usually be the public authority whose decision, action or omission is being challenged. Any person (other than the claimant and defendant) who is directly affected by a claim may be an ‘interested

This glossary provides: • all the costs terms within the CPR glossary and provides an explanation of their use • all the terms defined in the glossary of the Senior Courts Costs Office Guide (SCCO Guide), at pages 9–12 • costs budgeting terms and provides explanations. Such terms are currently not in the CPR glossary Term Definition Senior Courts Costs Office Guide/explanation Appropriate office SCCO Guide—the office in which a request for a detailed assessment hearing should be filed: it is the County Court Office or District Registry for the court in which the order for costs was made or, in all other cases, the Senior Court Costs Office (SCCO). Where the SCCO is the appropriate office for the request, it is also the appropriate office for any request or application made earlier in the detailed assessment proceedings, eg a request for a default costs certificate, a request or application to set aside such a certificate and applications for extension of time and sanctions for delay. The SCCO is the appropriate office for certain County Court

Archived: This Practice Note has been archived and is for historical purposes only. Lord Rupert Jackson and Lord Neuberger are giving a series of lectures entitled the Civil Litigation Costs Review Implementation Programme. The lectures are set out below: First lecture 5 September 2011: Legal aid and the Costs Review Reforms Legal aid Second lecture 11 October 2011: Contingency legal aid fund and the supplementary legal aid fund CLAF and SLAF Third

This Practice Note explains the principles applied in relation to costs in children proceedings (private and public) and the limited circumstances in which an order for costs may be made. The general position is that it is unusual for the court to make a costs order in children proceedings, although such proceedings are subject to the general rule that the court may at any time make such order as to costs as it thinks just. Key areas for consideration are: • legislative provisions • key case law • case law examples where costs orders were made • costs against non-parties, and • specific considerations in public children proceedings The underlying reasons why costs orders are unusual in children cases are that such orders: • will reduce the funds available to meet the needs of the family • are likely to increase tension between the parties, which would not be in the best interests of the child, and • may deter a party from taking court proceedings A wish not to reduce adult co-operation