The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the standing of the applicant to seek review of the decision. The judge acknowledged the possibility that the applicant had only his private interests at heart, but considered that he could proceed because of the significance of the decision under review. The applicant’s motive was capable of being relevant, but was not such here as to make the application an abuse.
Dyson LJ addressed the question of abuse of process in the context of Judicial Review proceedings, saying: ‘In my judgment, if a claimant has no sufficient private interest to support a claim to standing, then he should not be accorded standing merely because he raises an issue in which there is, objectively speaking, a public interest. As Sedley J said in R v Somerset County Council, Ex p Dixon [1997] JPL 1030, when considering the issue of standing, the court had to ensure that the claimant was not prompted by an ill motive, and was not a mere busybody or a trouble-maker. Thus, if a claimant seeks to challenge a decision in which he has no private law interest, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the court will accord him standing, even where there is a public interest in testing the lawfulness of the decision, if the claimant is acting out of ill-will or for some other improper purpose. It is an abuse of process to permit a claimant to bring a claim in such circumstances. If the real reason why a claimant wishes to challenge a decision in which, objectively, there is a public interest is not that he has a genuine concern about the decision, but some other reason, then that is material to the question whether he should be accorded standing.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1546, Times 07-Nov-2003, Gazette 02-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1761
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council CA 14-Oct-2003
The applicants had sought judicial review of the defendant’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former CandA building in Oxford Street. Though the application for leave to apply had been successful, and a full hearing took . .
Appeal from – Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
See Also – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .
Cited by:
See Also – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .
Cited – Land Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .
Now set aside – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 8-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially . .
Cited – Good Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .
See Also – Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
. .
See Also – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture, Environment, Judicial Review
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.187505
