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 policy toward the land had changed in 2000. It was a decision of a specialist body, and therefore the court could interfere only on limited grounds. The defendant had not taken into account immaterial matters, and the claimants had not ever explained how the defendants could have reached any other decision in the light of the material placed before them. The judge had criticised the claimants for not challenging the policy at first, but that was wrong. The claimants would then have been told their action was premature. The power in the defendant not to confirm an order would have to be exercised in the light of a genuine open-minded consultation and investigation. It had been so exercised. The decision did not infringe the clamants’ human rights.
Judges:
Lord Justice Auld, Mr Justice Pumfrey, Lord Justice Wall
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 663, Times 04-Jun-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 147, [2004] 4 All ER 861
Links:
Statutes:
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 52, The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (SI 1194/2716)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Aggregate Industries UK Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v English Nature and and Another Admn 24-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged English Nature’s confirmation of a notice that their land was a site of special scientific interest. The land comprised some 600 acres in Hampshire which had planning permission for mineral extraction known as ‘Bramshill’. . .
Cited – Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Environment
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.197943