The Supreme Court delivered all its verdicts for its May session on Friday (28 May 2010) and preliminary reports suggested a Chelsea-like score in favour of the government (here). This has many people scratching their heads. Bewilderment has turned to despondence for some, as the Court also handed costs orders against plaintiffs in public interest cases. "It's to ensure the government has an extra bit of firepower against these groups," said one scowling lawyer, "it means they can run to attach property at any stage." It certainly seems a bit excessive to issue costs against, for example, an association seeking to enforce their children's constitutional right to free primary education.
Before we get too bitter, though, let's wait to see the reasons. (Attempting to get the reasons was an interesting exercise - we waited in the atrium of the High Court for four hours while copies were made by the Deputy-Registrar. But then they were only given to the lawyers of each case. Karl Popper would not have approved.)
(ps, I haven't quite mastered the use of pictures etc, this photo is from top-footballer.com. I'm not just saying this because I'm a lawyer and I fear being sued, I actually genuinely care about photographers receiving their due.)
(Note: Since this blog was posted it has come to my notice that the Court did not issue a costs order in the Free Education Case, nor in Aphane judgement, although it did in the EBC case - details to come.)
