Key Facts
- •Robert Zachary Cox challenged the Forestry Commission's clear-felling policy in the New Forest National Park and across England.
- •The Forestry Commission refused to review its clear-felling policy, citing an existing policy in place since 2019.
- •Cox argued the clear-felling caused irreversible harm to the environment and protected species, including pine martens.
- •The initial application for judicial review was refused by Calver J due to lack of clarity and promptness.
- •Cox renewed his application, arguing for a review on grounds of ultra vires, Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety, and breach of human rights.
- •The Forestry Commission defended its actions, emphasizing the lawful policy and the public interest in its implementation.
Legal Principles
Promptness in bringing judicial review claims.
R (Badmus) v SS for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 657
The time limit for issuing a claim for judicial review cannot be circumvented by generating correspondence merely to confirm a previously taken decision.
Arnold White Estates Ltd v The Forestry Commission [2022] EWCA Civ 1304
There is no general duty on a public body to give reasons for following an adopted policy.
Paragraph 2c of the Judgement
Compliance with paragraph 7.3 of the Administrative Court Guide 2023 regarding clear and concise statements of grounds for claims.
Administrative Court Guide 2023, paragraph 7.3
Judicial review is only available for decisions, not policies themselves unless the application of the policy is unlawful
Judgement
Outcomes
The renewed application for permission for judicial review was refused.
The court found the claim was out of time, lacked merit, and challenged the established policy rather than a specific decision. No new factor had emerged to justify a review.
Capped costs of £5,000 were awarded to the defendant.
The claim was an Aarhus claim.