{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027692307692307693, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027692307692307693, 'mean_word_length': 4.516949152542373, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Corner House Revisited: The Law Governing Protective Costs Orders

1. It is widely accepted that the court’s power to make a protective costs order (PCO) – be it in favour of a claimant or a defendant – is vital to ensuring an effective system of judicial review and thereby upholding the rule of law.1 However, despite the seminal judgment in R (Corner House) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2005] EWCA Civ 192 [2005] 1 WLR 2607 three years on there remained much confusion about the PCO jurisdiction, both as to its scope and the applicable procedure. This confusion has recently been clarified by two judgments of the Court of Appeal.