The company had developed a means of generating electricity from their excess sugar supplies, and challenged the support given to it by the respondent and in particular that the 2009 Order allowed the respondent to favour some types of energy generation, and had been based upon mistaken information.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘even if the appellant’s premise is correct, and the court is satisfied that the appellant’s technology would have been banded more favourably had the correct costs information been used, this did not compel the Secretary of State to carry out the review on the limited basis advanced by the appellant . . the usual situation requires a public body to reach decisions in the light of all the information then available.’
Elias LJ said: ‘I recognise that fairness is an important principle of public law but in determining what is fair in any particular context it is necessary to have regard to the wider public interest. I am not persuaded that as a consequence of this review the Appellant is being unfairly treated. They are in fact receiving the appropriate subsidy for someone incurring the costs involved in developing their particular technology. It is true that they were not obtaining the windfall resulting from the increase in electricity prices which they would have received had no error been made. Furthermore, it may be the case that other producers are receiving a windfall as a result of that price increase and will continue to do so until their technologies are reviewed (although as I have said there will be no windfall if costs have outstripped the electricity price). That is not, in my judgment, a sufficient reason to confer this benefit on the Appellant. It may be bad luck that but for the error the Appellant would have been treated more favourably than was necessary properly to subsidise their technology, particularly since some others will have received the more favourable treatment. It does not follow that it was unfair and an abuse of power to carry out a full review.’
Longmore, Aikens, Elias LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 664
Bailii
Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, Renewables Obligation Order in 2002, Renewables Obligations Order 2009
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Another Admn 2-Nov-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of the 2009 Order, complaining of the reduced allocation to it of a renewables obligation certificate.
Held: The claim failed. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Zeqiri HL 24-Jan-2002
The applicant sought to resist an order for his return to Germany, the first country of call after escaping Kosovo. He asserted that Germany was not complying with its international obligations. He said the Gashi case had created a legitimate . .
Cited – Regina (Kelsall and Others) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) Admn 13-Mar-2003
The claimants were mink farmers. They challenged the order arranging compensation for the closure of their businesses following the ban on fur farming.
Held: The provisions of the order were arbitrary and unfair, failing to take into account . .
Cited – Rashid, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jun-2005
The Home Secretary appealed against a grant of a judicial review to the respondent who had applied for asylum. The court had found that two other asylum applicants had been granted leave to remain on similar facts and on the appellants, and that it . .
Cited – Middlebrook Mushrooms Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Agricultural Wages Board of England and Wales Admn 18-Jun-2004
The company complained that whereas the generality of employers in agriculture were exempt from control under the minimum wage system, mushroom growers had not been exempted.
Held: The withdrawal of the exemption was irrational and . .
Cited by:
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham and Others), Regina (on The Application of) v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance and Others Admn 13-Feb-2013
Judicial review was sought of the changes to the marking systems for GCSE English in 2012.
Held: The claim failed. Though properly brought, the failure was in the underlying structue of the qualification, and not in the respondent’s attempts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Environment, Utilities, Administrative
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.440316