[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Greenpeace Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Environment, Food & Rural Affairs & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1240 (25 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1240.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1240

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Scott Baker)

		The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday 25th July, 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: We will give our decision on all the applications consequential on our refusing the application for judicial review.
2. First, the application by the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for their costs of the application. This was opposed by Miss Haynes on behalf of Greenpeace, who contended there should be no order as to costs. She deployed various arguments as to how it was in the public interest for her clients to raise this matter, and that what had been advanced was a responsible and reasonable interpretation of the provisions.
3. We order the costs in favour of both the Secretary of State and Customs and Excise. They successfully resisted this application. The arguments which they advanced were not identical, because the relief which had been sought against them by Greenpeace was not identical. We order the costs of both the Secretary of State and Customs and Excise, but we order a detailed assessment of those costs, if the parties are unable to agree them.
4. Second, there was an application by the interested party that it should have an order for costs against Greenpeace. The interested party was Alan Thomas Craig Ltd, who had participated in the hearing below, but took no part in this appeal after the position against them was clarified by Greenpeace. They have provided a statement of costs, which adds up to a substantial amount, relating to work which was done on the case. In our view, no order for costs should be made in favour of the interested party. The position having been clarified, there was no need for them to participate in the appeal. It was a matter for them whether they should submit a skeleton argument and whether they should attend, as apparently they did, on part of the day of the hearing.
5. Third, there is an appeal by Greenpeace against the order for costs in favour of the interested party which was made by Scott Baker J when he refused leave to bring the proceedings for judicial review. We dismiss that appeal on the basis that the judge exercised his discretion in a manner in which he was entitled to. Relief was sought against the interested party before him, which was not sought in this court. The relief took the form of a claim for an interim mandatory injunction in relation to what has been referred to as the Birkenhead cargo. That application was unsuccessful. The interested party was entitled to attend and, the application having been refused, they were entitled to ask for their costs. We do not interfere with judge's discretion because it cannot be shown that he has exercised it on any incorrect basis.
6. The fourth and final matter is the application by Greenpeace for permission to appeal to the House of Lords. Miss Haynes has submitted a number of arguments as to why we should grant permission, saying it is a matter of general public interest and pointing to the fact that a different interpretation has been placed by the majority of this court on the relevant provisions than has been given to those provisions by other member states. These may be matters relevant to any possible application at a future date for a reference to the European Court of Justice. They do not seem to us to be particularly relevant to the question whether we should grant permission to appeal against our judgments.
7. As it happens, the matter is, as Mr Lewis has said, on behalf of the Secretary of State, purely historic. The matter of the particular cargo that gave rise to these proceedings has been resolved. The difference between the members of court in their judgments is on a relatively narrow point. In the circumstances we think that it is appropriate to leave to it their Lordships' House to decide whether or not to grant permission to appeal.
8. I think that covers everything.