Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Unsuccessful challenge to cannabinol derivative sale prohibition results in costs awarded to State
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court rules that the applicant, who unsuccessfully challenged the prohibition on the sale of certain cannabinol derivatives, must pay the legal costs of the State Respondents and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The court found that the proceedings did not meet the criteria for a nil costs order in public interest litigation as outlined by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment. The applicant's case was deemed to lack general public importance, did not clarify the law in an area of systemic importance, and was considered an obviously weak one, particularly given the existence of a clear precedent. The court also noted the applicant's commercial interests and the unnecessary legal costs incurred by the Director of Public Prosecutions due to the applicant's conduct of the litigation.
Cannabinol derivatives, judicial review, public interest litigation, legal costs, test case, lead case, Supreme Court, Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, cannabinol derivative prohibition, EU law, free movement of goods, narcotic drugs, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Kanavape case, public prosecution, commercial interests, precedent, legal principles.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
