Court of Appeal Rules on Necessity of Welsh Ministers' Approval for Pre-Existing Coal Mining Licenses Under Section 26A: Legal Interpretation and Legislative Context Key in Decision

Citation: [2024] EWCA Civ 168
Judgment on

Introduction

In the recent judgment of the Coal Action Network, R (on the application of) v Welsh Ministers & Ors: EWCA Civ 168, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) addressed the interpretation of section 26A of the Coal Industry Act 1994 within the legislative framework established by both the 1994 Act and the Wales Act 2017. At the heart of the case was the question of whether the Welsh Ministers’ approval was required for a coal mining license that had been granted before the enforcement of section 26A but whose conditions to carry out coal-mining operations were met after the section came into force. The judgment emphasizes the importance of statutory interpretation and the consideration of legislative context.

Key Facts

Energybuild Mining Ltd. operated under a mining license granted in 1996 and varied in 2013, which allowed coal-mining operations in certain conditions. In 2020, they applied to confirm the satisfaction of those conditions. The Welsh Ministers decided that they were not required to approve the commencement of operations under section 26A, since the license predated the section’s enforcement.

Coal Action Network challenged this, arguing that operations should be treated as separate from the license, and for an operation authorized post-section 26A’s enforcement, Welsh Ministers’ approval was necessary. They contended that the interpretation by the Welsh Ministers gave the legislation a retrospective effect, which was not permissible.

The Court of Appeal established multiple legal principles in its decision:

  1. Statutory Interpretation: According to Lord Justice Lewis, the first question in statutory interpretation is to determine the meaning of the statute by its text, context, and the broader legislative environment.

  2. Licence vs. Authorisation: The Court clarified that a licence and authorization are not separate entities—an authorization is contained within a licence. The licence specifies the coal-mining operations and may impose conditions that must be satisfied before the operations commence.

  3. Retrospective Application: The Court considered whether section 26A would have retrospective effect if applied to licences granted before it came into force. The presumption against retrospective legislation suggests that new statutes should not take effect on past transactions unless expressly stated.

  4. Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1): The case touched on the concept of A1P1, which secures individuals’ rights to their possessions. An argument was made that treating a license as a “possession” within A1P1 means it should not be revoked without compensation or a right of appeal.

Outcomes

The Court ruled that section 26A of the 1994 Act does not apply to licences granted prior to its enforcement. They interpreted “licence” within section 26A as referring to licences that came into existence post-1 April 2018. As such, the Welsh Ministers did not err in their decision regarding the necessity of approval. They held that the license at issue was already granted and effective before the commencement of section 26A. As a result, the Coal Action Network’s appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion

The Coal Action Network v Welsh Ministers & Ors case embodies the fundamental aspects of statutory interpretation when considering the timing and scope of a licence’s effect. It has affirmed that licences granted before the enactment of a statute do not require approval under provisions added by subsequent legislation. The decision signifies the importance of legislative context and Parliament’s intent in statutory interpretation, suggesting that legislative provisions are not to be applied retrospectively unless explicitly intended by Parliament. Moreover, the case illustrates how the Court navigates between statutory principles and human rights considerations, notably with regard to A1P1. This judgment serves as practical guidance for legal professionals in the UK, providing clarity on the application of new statutory provisions to pre-existing licenses.