CPRE Kent v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2021] UKSC 36
CPRE Kent is a Supreme Court authority on costs in judicial review and planning statutory review proceedings. Although the underlying challenge concerned a Local Plan, the issue before the Supreme Court was procedural: who can recover costs when permission to proceed with a review is refused.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2021] UKSC 36; [2021] 1 WLR 4168
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
- Judgment date
- 30th July 2021
- Judge
- Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows
- Case number
- UKSC 2019/0174
The Supreme Court appeal was about costs
CPRE Kent had brought a statutory review challenge concerning Maidstone Borough Council’s Local Plan. Permission to proceed was refused. The Secretary of State, the council and an interested party had each filed an acknowledgement of service and summary grounds and each received a costs award, together exhausting the applicable Aarhus costs cap.
More than one party can recover permission-stage costs
The Supreme Court dismissed CPRE Kent’s appeal. When permission for judicial review or planning statutory review is refused, a claimant may be ordered to pay the reasonable and proportionate costs incurred by more than one defendant or interested party in preparing an acknowledgement of service and summary grounds.
There is no rule restricting recovery to a single set of costs and no requirement for exceptional circumstances before multiple costs orders can be made.
The court still controls proportionality and duplication
The result does not create an automatic entitlement to every cost claimed. The court retains its costs discretion and can consider whether work was useful, reasonable and proportionate, whether parties duplicated each other’s submissions and whether coordination should have reduced the expense.
Read the judgment
The official Supreme Court page contains the judgment and press summary: CPRE Kent v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Planning Geek also holds the full judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open it below.
CPRE Kent Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026