Brian May’s request for judicial review into badger cull rejected – BBC News
‘Rock star Brian May’s quest for a judicial review into the legalities of badger culling has failed.’
BBC News, 26th October 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: environmental protection
Roseacre Wood fracking row: high court gives go-ahead for judicial review – The Guardian
‘Campaigners in one of the UK’s key fracking battlegrounds have been given the green light to bring a judicial review of Lancashire county council’s decision to allow seismic monitoring equipment at proposed drilling sites.’
The Guardian, 23rd October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Charging Ahead under the EIR – Panopticon
‘It is difficult to imagine what could possibly have happened yesterday to cause the CJEU’s judgment in Case C-71/14 East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner (judgment of 6 October 2015) to slip beneath the waves, but for those who spent the day reading, talking and thinking about Safe Harbo(u)rs (presumably something to do with shipping?) East Sussex represents a comforting return to normality, if not mundanity, where the CJEU is asked straightforward questions and it doesn’t quite answer them.’
Panopticon, 7th October 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
Climate Change & Rule of Law: Lecture by Philippe Sands QC chaired by Lord Carnwath – Supreme Court
‘In the run up to the climate change negotiations in Paris this December, Professor Philippe Sands QC delivered a public lecture at the UK Supreme Court focusing on the role of international law and judges in addressing legal issues relating to climate change.’
Supreme Court, 18th September 2015
UK consults on ‘improvements’ to environmental costs protection rules – OUT-LAW.com
‘The UK government has begun a preliminary consultation on changes to the costs protection rules in environmental cases in England and Wales. The Environmental Costs Protection Regime is designed to ensure that it is not “prohibitively expensive” for campaigners and members of the public to challenge the decisions of public bodies. Improvements to the regime are needed to address concerns raised by the European Commission over the UK’s approach to the rules, particularly the fact that they do not take into account challengers’ individual financial circumstances. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) upheld the Commission’s case in February 2014.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th September 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Judge rejects bid for JR over impact of regeneration scheme on bats – Local Government Lawyer
‘A High Court judge has refused to grant permission for a judicial review challenge to the grant of planning permission for a major regeneration project over its impact on bats.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th September 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Climate Change & the Rule of Law – Supreme Court
‘Some of the world’s leading judges, lawyers and legal academics met in London last week (17-19 September) for a special three-day symposium on climate change and adjudication, hosted by the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London, with the support of The UK Supreme Court, HM Government, the Journal of Environmental Law, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme.’
Full story
Supreme Court, 21st September 2015
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
MoJ consults on costs protection in environmental litigation – Litigation Futures
‘The government has launched a consultation on steps to bring the UK into line with recent judgments of the European Court of Justice on costs protection for certain environmental challenges.’
Litigation Futures, 21st September 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Planning, Environment and Property Newsletter – 39 Essex Chambers
Planning, Environment and Property Newsletter (PDF)
39 Essex Chambers, July 2015
Source: www.39essex.com
Inspector misinterpreted policy allowing “reasonable expansion” of business in midlands green belt, High Court rules – OUT-LAW.com
‘A planning inspector was wrong to stop a UK company from expanding its premises into the green belt, the High Court in the UK has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th August 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Regina (Champion) v North Norfolk District Council and another – WLR Daily
Regina (Champion) v North Norfolk District Council and another [2015] UKSC 52; [2015] WLR (D) 333
‘The formal procedures prescribed in the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) legislation, including screening, preparation of an environmental statement and mandatory public consultation, had no counterpart in the habitats legislation. The decision whether an EIA was required had to be taken early in the planning process, although a negative decision might be reviewed subsequently. Mitigation measures might properly be considered at the screening stage and, where appropriate, included in the environmental statement.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court refuses relief despite legal defect before planning permission – Local Government Lawyer
‘The Supreme Council has refused to grant relief despite finding a legal defect in the procedure prior to a district council’s grant of planning permission for a development, in a key case relating to appropriate assessments, EIA assessments and mitigation measures.’
Local Government Lawyer, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Off the scale: Sentencing very large companies for environmental crimes – Henderson Chambers
‘Earlier this month judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal in R v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2015] EWCA Crim 960, examining what should be done when a corporate offender’s turnover is so large that it falls outside the scale set down in the sentencing guidelines. This is the first case of its kind to come before the Court of Appeal since publication of the Definitive Guideline for Environmental Offences by the Sentencing Council in July 2014. Rejecting Thames Water’s appeal against a £250,000 fine, the court said that fines levied against very large companies “had to bring home the appropriate message to the directors and shareholders of the company” and could go as high as 100% of pre-tax profits. ‘
Henderson Chambers, June 2015
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
Council was entitled to refuse disclosure of planning documents, tribunal rules – OUT-LAW.com
‘The First-Tier Tribunal has dismissed an appeal and held that following a freedom of information request Aylesbury Vale District Council was entitled to refuse disclosure of correspondence between its solicitor and the planning department.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th July 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Higher fines for repeated corporate convictions more likely following Thames Water judgment, says expert – OUT-LAW.com
‘ Companies repeatedly convicted of regulatory offences should expect fines to be in the millions of pounds following a string of recent court cases.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Developer loses Court of Appeal challenge over neighbourhood plan – Local Government Lawyer
‘The Court of Appeal has rejected a developer’s challenge over the inclusion of site allocation policies in a neighbourhood development plan. The appellant in Larkfleet Homes Ltd, R (on the application of) v Rutland County Council & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 597 was a house-building company with a commercial interest in land to the west of Ayston Road in the town of Uppingham in the county of Rutland.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th June 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Government ordered to publish redacted fracking report in full – The Guardian
‘A heavily-redacted government report on the impacts of fracking on house prices, businesses and services in rural areas must be published in full, the UK’s information commissioner has ruled.’
The Guardian, 18th June 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
English judge: persistent environmental offenders should expect ‘substantial’ fines – OUT-LAW.com
‘Companies that persistently breach environmental regulations should expect a “substantial increase” in fines levied for their second and subsequent offences, judges in the Court of Appeal have warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
R (Luton Borough Council) v Central Bedfordshire Council and others – WLR Daily
‘Paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF”) ((27 March 2012) did not lay down a presumption or create a requirement that the boundaries of the Green Belt had to first be altered via the process for changing a local plan before development might take place on the area in question. Paragraphs 87–88 of the NPPF plainly contemplated that development might be permitted on land within the Green Belt, without the need to change its boundaries in the local plan, provided “very special circumstances” existed.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Civil procedure: costs recoverability – Law Society’s Gazette
‘A discrete but significant issue on costs recently came before the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWCA Civ 203.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 18th May 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
