Mott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency: SC 14 Feb 2018

The Court considered the legality under the European Convention on Human Rights of licensing conditions imposed by the Environment Agency restricting certain forms of salmon-fishing in the Severn Estuary. The claimant operated a licensed putcher rank salmon fishing business.
Held: The Agency’s appeal failed. The judge’s reasoning was correct. He had not find it necessary to categorise the measure as either expropriation or control. It was enough that it ‘eliminated at least 95% of the benefit of the right’, thus making it ‘closer to deprivation than mere control’. This was clearly relevant to the ‘fair balance’. Yet the Agency had given no consideration to the particular impact on his livelihood. The impact was exacerbated because the method chosen meant that by far the greatest impact fell on him, as compared to others whose use may have been only for leisure purposes.

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 10, [2018] 2 All ER 663, [2018] LLR 356, [2018] 1 WLR 1022, [2018] Env LR 20, [2018] WLR(D) 86, UKSC 2016/0148
Bailii, Bailii Summray, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20171213 am Video, SC 2017 pm Video
European Convention on Human Rights A1P1, Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
At first InstanceMott, Regina (on The Application of) v The Environment Agency and Another Admn 13-Feb-2015
The claimant challenged new conditions imposed on licences to operate his salmon fishery in the Severn Estuary, which operated to defeat his tenancy of the fishery.
Held: The request for review succeeded. The decisions to impose the catch . .
CitedMott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Another CA 17-Jun-2016
The applicant challenged restrictions on salmon fishing imposed by the respondent. At first instance they were held to be irrational, and the Agency appealed.
Held: The Regulations were not irrational and that element of the appeal succeeded, . .
CitedBack v Finland ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The claimant was the owner of a substantial debt owed by another individual. However the value of his debt was reduced to a very small level when the debtor entered a statutory scheme for compromise of debts.
Held: It must be open to a . .
CitedSporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .
CitedTrailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedMellacher and Others v Austria ECHR 19-Dec-1989
The case concerned restrictions on the rent that a property owner could charge. The restrictions were applied to existing leases. It was said that the restrictions brought into play the second paragraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the . .
CitedPapamichalopoulos and Others v Greece ECHR 24-Jun-1993
Expropriation notices, which were eventually withdrawn, constituted neither deprivation of property nor control of use, but ‘The fact that the permits fell within the ambit of neither of the second sentence of the first paragraph nor of the second . .
CitedPosti and Rahko v Finland ECHR 24-Sep-2002
Hudoc Two fishermen who operated under leases granted by the Finnish state complained that restrictions imposed by the government to safeguard fish stocks had failed to strike a fair balance under A1P1. The court . .
CitedHutten-Czapska v Poland ECHR 19-Jun-2006
Grand Chamber. The court considered the need for establishing a fair balance in cases under A1P1: ‘Not only must an interference with the right of property pursue, on the facts as well as in principle, a ‘legitimate aim’ in the ‘general interest’, . .
CitedRe B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) SC 12-Jun-2013
B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of . .
CitedPindstrup Mosebrug A/S v Denmark ECHR 3-Jun-2008
Restrictions had been imposed on the commercial exploitation of a peat bog, regarded as geologically and biologically unique.
Held: The claim was inadmissible. The effect on the claimants was not unduly severe, having regard to the findings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Agriculture

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.604791