Magistrates’ Court summons decision JR

In bringing a private prosecution for a wildlife crime against a coal mining company, the client (instructing other solicitors) had mis-named the defendant company in the summons. The Magistrates Court found that the summons could not be amended. We successfully judicially reviewed that decision, and in the process, secured a useful precedent in relation to the broad scope of the costs protection rules.

The case involved a dispute over the legal principles relating to amendment of a summons. We successfully argued that these had been applied incorrectly by the Magistrates’ Court. The decision to refuse to amend the summons was therefore quashed.

Costs Protection

Notably, the company sought to prevent our client from securing costs protection on the basis that the judicial review of a purely procedural decision was not an environmental claim which fell within the Aarhus costs protection rules. Whilst permission was granted in the substantive claim, the judge who initially considered the matter ordered that costs protection was not available. Our client was unable to continue the case without protection from the company’s (very significant) costs.

A hearing was held to consider the issue of Aarhus costs protection. We successfully argued that the Aarhus costs protection rules encompassed a procedural claim such as this one where the substantive case hinges on the procedural point. Costs protection was therefore granted and the company was ordered to pay our client’s costs of the dispute in relation to costs protection.

Paul Stookes acted as advocate, instructed by Matthew McFeeley, in the costs protection hearing. William Upton QC acted as counsel in the substantive hearing.