Whether the court had erred in failing to make a protective cost order where the appellant was unable to adequately assess his prospect of success due to the Treasury’s reliance on closed material. Held: Requiring the appellant to embark on an appeal without a PCO until at least after disclosure and gisting created the very kind of unfairness which PCOs were designed to overcome. The court ought to have considered whether the criteria had been met.
Dan Squires QC was involved in this case.