A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay.
Held: The appeal failed. The variation of the terms for nuclear waste site testing was lawful. A responsible body with a bona fide concern about the subject matter of the proceedings may be regarded as being more than a mere ‘busy body.’
Glidewell LJ said that where a stay might operate to the detriment of third parties who are not before the court, the court should apply the principles ordinarily applicable to a claim for an interim injunction and consider whether, on the balance of convenience, the grant of a stay is justified. He also said: ‘At the hearing before Brooke J no offer was made by Greenpeace to give an undertaking as to damages suffered by BNFL should they suffer any; the sort of undertaking that would normally be required if an interlocutory injunction were to be granted. I bear in mind that the judge said that he was influenced by the evidence about Greenpeace’s likely inability to pay for that financial loss, but he had earlier remarked that he had not been offered an undertaking. If we were dealing with this matter purely on the material which was before the judge, I would find no difficulty at all. This was essentially a matter for the discretion of the judge.’
Scott LJ said: ‘But if the purpose of the interlocutory stay is, as here, to prevent executive action by a third party in pursuance of rights which have been granted by the decision under attack, then, in my judgment, to require a cross-undertaking in damages to be given is, as a matter of discretion, an entirely permissible condition for the grant of interlocutory relief and in general, I would think, unless some special feature be present, a condition that should be expected to be imposed.’
Glidewell, Scott, Evans LLJ
Independent 30-Sep-1993, [1994] 4 All ER 329, [1993] EWCA Civ 9, [1994] ELR 76, [1994] 1 WLR 570
Bailii
Radioactive Substances Act 1960
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd Admn 10-Nov-1994
The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Environment, Judicial Review
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.86866
