Amend the cost cap for judicial reviews and limit legal challenges to NSIPs

Following consultation with the Lord Chancellor, enact the following changes to the operation of the existing cost caps:

1. Where the court determines, in any part of the proceedings, that there has been a "misuse of judicial review", there should be an automatic removal of the costs protection. This should be coupled with a requirement that the counsel and solicitors certify, as part of a claim, that the grounds have a more likely than not chance of success.
2. The cost cap is raised to take account of inflation since 2013 and linked to inflation going forward. Courts should, in addition, be issued guidance which encourages them to set higher caps, or maximally utilise their discretion, where there is a misuse of the process or where it is clear the intent is to delay development.
3. The cost cap be cascaded, being doubled for each stage of a challenge (e.g. from £10,000 at the first instance to £20,000 at the Court of Appeal).
4. Where crowd funding is utilised, the cap should be set at 70% of total funds raised (e.g. £70,000 if a campaigning group has raised £100,000 for a legal action). We consider that 70% represents a figure which balances access to justice, and the need for nuclear development without delay.
5. The costs cap for the decision-maker being challenged should always be set at a level which is at least 5 times the claimant’s cap in order to balance the relationship between a challenger and the decision-maker.

If necessary, prior to the enactment of the above, amend the Aarhus Convention under Article 14 of the Convention which endorse the principle of the measures above. If the principle of these measures is not endorsed, the UK should dispute any findings against it. Ongoing membership to the Convention is a matter for the UK Government. The principle of a ‘single bite of the cherry’, and the above measures, should be extended beyond just NSIPs to nuclear site licensing and permitting decisions. If claimants lose on an issue relating to the DCO, they should not be able to appeal to the Court of Appeal.