Wickford Development Company Limited & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[2024] EWHC 2034 (Admin)
Robert Zachery Cox, R (on the application of) v Forestry Commission
19 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3332 (Admin)
High Court
Someone sued the Forestry Commission for cutting down too many trees. The court said the lawsuit was too late and that the way the Forestry Commission was cutting down trees was already legal, so they couldn't be stopped.
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.
Similar Cases
Jonathan Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council
[2023] EWHC 317 (Admin)
Barbara Atwill, R (on the application of) v New Forest National Park Authority
[2023] EWHC 625 (Admin)
Scott Loveluck & Anor v Natural England
[2024] EWHC 2404 (Admin)
Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds, R (on the application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council
[2023] EWHC 901 (Admin)