Ruling has far-reaching effect on environmental challenges to planning permissions

The court’s interpretation is aligned with the Aarhus Convention’s requirement that such proceedings are “not prohibitively expensive”

On Thursday, a five-judge Supreme Court allowed the Heather Hill and Mr McGoldrick’s appeal, finding the effect of section 50B is that all grounds in proceedings challenging the validity of certain development consents benefit from costs protection. File picture

The Supreme Court has ruled that litigants challenging planning permissions on environmental grounds are entitled to a special protective costs order (PCO) for all of their grounds of challenge.

The decision, which overturns a decision of the Court of Appeal, has wide-reaching consequences for judicial review planning actions that cite European law, as it means an applicant who loses their case would not be liable for the successful party's costs.