Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHumby, T
dc.date.accessioned2009-06-08T08:38:39Z
dc.date.available2009-06-08T08:38:39Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.issn1727-3781
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/1928
dc.description.abstractUsing as a case study the recent decision on costs in the Biowatch matter, this article critically examines the traditional fundamental rules on costs in the light of the needs of constitutional and a fortiori public interest litigation. The fundamental rules on costs are taken to include the two traditional principles (that costs are a matter of judicial discretion and that to a successful party should be awarded his costs), the requirement that the discretion be exercised judicially, the test for interference in costs orders in a court of appeal, and the characterisation of costs orders as requiring the exercise of only a narrow discretion on appeal. In the light of the decisions in the Biowatch matter it is argued that the current rules do not meet the new needs of constitutional and/or public interest litigation as regards access to justice, equal protection and benefit of the law, proportionality, and the accountability of the judiciary. Suggestions are made for possible reform.en
dc.titleReflections on the Biowatch Dispute – Reviewing the fundamental rules on costs In the light of the needs of constitutional and/or public interest litigationen
dc.typeArticleen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record