Key Facts
- •Judicial review of the authorisation of coal-mining operations at Aberpergwm Colliery.
- •Energybuild Mining Ltd holds a conditional licence issued in 1996 and varied in 2013.
- •Coal Action Network challenges two decisions: (i) Welsh Ministers' decision that they lack power under section 26A of the Coal Industry Act 1994 to approve coal-mining operations; (ii) Coal Authority's decision to approve Energybuild's application to deconditionalise the licence.
- •The application concerns deconditionalisation of 1,131 hectares of a larger conditional licence area.
- •Welsh Government policy is to bring a managed end to coal extraction, with a presumption against new coal mines.
- •The Coal Authority's decision was based on Energybuild meeting financial and competence requirements and the risk of subsidence.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation: words are given their natural and ordinary meaning, considering context and common sense.
London Borough of Lambeth v the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] UKSC 33
Presumption against retrospectivity: Parliament is presumed not to intend a statute to have unfair retrospective effects unless clearly stated.
Bennion on Statutory Interpretation
Judicial review of decisions: materiality is for the decision-maker, but a factor can be challenged if so obviously material that no reasonable decision-maker could have ignored it.
R (Ashchurch Rural Parish Council) v Tewksbury Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 101
Coal Industry Act 1994 provides a comprehensive scheme for licensing and managing coal mining.
Abbey Mine Ltd v Coal Authority [2008] EWCA Civ 353
Outcomes
Ground 1 (Section 26A applicability) dismissed.
Section 26A applies to new or additional authorisations, not those already granted (even if postponed). Applying it retrospectively would be unfair to the licensee. The court considered the presumption against retrospectivity and the lack of clarity in the legislation.
Ground 2 (Coal Authority's decision) dismissed.
The Coal Authority's task was limited to determining if conditions precedent were met, not re-evaluating the initial authorization. The relevant policy considerations were not material to this limited task.