Fisher and Another v English Nature: Admn 4 Jul 2003

The claimants were trustees of land. The Respondent had notified the Secretary of State that they considered that part of the land satisfied the criteria to be certifed as being of special scientific interest. They now intended to confirm the notification. The claimants said that they could have considered alternative ways of protecting the land including acceptance of undertakings or alternative designations which were less onerous.
Held: The statute required that if the respondent remained genuinely convinced that the site satisfied the criteria, it had no discretion and had to confirm the notification. The notification was not therefore disproportionate. The claimant had disavowed any challenge of the underlying law, and therefore the claim failed.
Lightman J
[2003] EWHC 1599 (Admin), Times 15-Sep-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 503, [2004] Env LR 7, [2003] 4 All ER 366, [2004] JPL 217, [2003] NPC 84
Bailii
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 28(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Nature Conservancy Council ex parte London Brick Property Ltd 1996
. .
CitedSimplex GE (Holdings) Limited v Secretary of State CA 1988
A decision should in general be quashed if by way of error a relevant consideration is not taken into account or an irrelevant consideration is taken into account unless the decision-maker was bound on the facts to have reached the same conclusion . .
CitedOerlemans v The Netherlands ECHR 27-Nov-1991
Land was designated as ‘a protected natural site’, the effect of which was that agricultural activities could continue but that if the owner wished to alter or intensify the use of the land or to make certain changes in agricultural practices, . .
CitedFredin v Sweden ECHR 18-Feb-1991
A gravel pit licence was revoked without compensation pursuant to legislation brought in after the owner had acquired the pit but before it had begun to exploit it. The actual revocation took place after the pit had been exploited for a number of . .
CitedJames and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
CitedTre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden ECHR 7-Jul-1989
An alcohol licence for a restaurant was withdrawn with immediate effect because of financial irregularities, with the result that the restaurant business collapsed.
Held: ‘The government argued that a licence to sell alcoholic beverages could . .

Cited by:
CitedTrailer and Marina (Leven) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature QBD 6-Feb-2004
The claimant owned land which contained a canal. After disuse it had become subject an order declaring it a site of special scientific intrest. The owner complained that this removed his right to develop uses of the land and infringed his human . .
Appeal fromRegina on the Application of Fisher v English Nature CA 27-May-2004
The claimants appealed a refusal of their request for a judicial review of a decision of the respondent to designate their land as being of special scientific interest because of the need to protect the stone curlew.
Held: The defendant’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2021; Ref: scu.185635