‘Jailing the 13 activists who last year chained themselves on Heathrow’s northern runway in protest at the airport’s expansion would represent a “massive threat” to the right to peaceful protest in the UK, according to John McDonnell and Caroline Lucas.’
The Guardian, 12th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A judge has been urged not to act on her threat to jail 13 peaceful environmental protesters – as campaigners warn that the British legal system’s long-standing tolerance towards non-violent direct action is under threat.’
The Independent, 2nd February 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Neonicitinoids are a group of active ingredients in plant protection products (pesticides). Their use is limited by a Regulation made by the European Commission. There is active debate about their effect on bees.’
No. 5 Chambers, 11th January 2016
Source: www.no5.com
‘A landowner who wished to challenge a local planning authority’s tree replacement notice on the grounds that the number of trees which the notice required him to replace was greater than the number of trees which he had removed from the land, bore the burden of proving his case by sufficient evidence.’
WLR Daily, 8th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Public opinion regarding raptors and pheasant shoots should not influence the authorisation of buzzard control, the Administrative Court has ruled. Any derogations to the EU protection of wild birds should apply equally across wild avian species, irrespective of their popularity.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th November 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘An interesting point arose in this judicial review (for which see Rosalind English’s post here). Could the claimant get the benefit of an order that any costs he might have had to pay were capped at £5,000? The original judge, Thirlwall J, when granting permission, had refused this costs protection. Ouseley J granted it, though, because the claimant won, the order is academic (short of a successful appeal by the defendant). ‘
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th November 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In a report published on Tuesday 10 November the Law Commission recommends reforms to modernise and simplify the law regulating wildlife and create a flexible legal framework for the future.’
Law Commission, 10th November 2015
Source: www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission
‘Rock star Brian May’s quest for a judicial review into the legalities of badger culling has failed.’
BBC News, 26th October 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Campaigners in one of the UK’s key fracking battlegrounds have been given the green light to bring a judicial review of Lancashire county council’s decision to allow seismic monitoring equipment at proposed drilling sites.’
The Guardian, 23rd October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘It is difficult to imagine what could possibly have happened yesterday to cause the CJEU’s judgment in Case C-71/14 East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner (judgment of 6 October 2015) to slip beneath the waves, but for those who spent the day reading, talking and thinking about Safe Harbo(u)rs (presumably something to do with shipping?) East Sussex represents a comforting return to normality, if not mundanity, where the CJEU is asked straightforward questions and it doesn’t quite answer them.’
Panopticon, 7th October 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘In the run up to the climate change negotiations in Paris this December, Professor Philippe Sands QC delivered a public lecture at the UK Supreme Court focusing on the role of international law and judges in addressing legal issues relating to climate change.’
Supreme Court, 18th September 2015
‘The UK government has begun a preliminary consultation on changes to the costs protection rules in environmental cases in England and Wales. The Environmental Costs Protection Regime is designed to ensure that it is not “prohibitively expensive” for campaigners and members of the public to challenge the decisions of public bodies. Improvements to the regime are needed to address concerns raised by the European Commission over the UK’s approach to the rules, particularly the fact that they do not take into account challengers’ individual financial circumstances. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) upheld the Commission’s case in February 2014.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th September 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A High Court judge has refused to grant permission for a judicial review challenge to the grant of planning permission for a major regeneration project over its impact on bats.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th September 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Some of the world’s leading judges, lawyers and legal academics met in London last week (17-19 September) for a special three-day symposium on climate change and adjudication, hosted by the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London, with the support of The UK Supreme Court, HM Government, the Journal of Environmental Law, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme.’
Full story
Supreme Court, 21st September 2015
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘The government has launched a consultation on steps to bring the UK into line with recent judgments of the European Court of Justice on costs protection for certain environmental challenges.’
Litigation Futures, 21st September 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Planning, Environment and Property Newsletter (PDF)
39 Essex Chambers, July 2015
Source: www.39essex.com
‘A planning inspector was wrong to stop a UK company from expanding its premises into the green belt, the High Court in the UK has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th August 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Regina (Champion) v North Norfolk District Council and another [2015] UKSC 52; [2015] WLR (D) 333
‘The formal procedures prescribed in the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) legislation, including screening, preparation of an environmental statement and mandatory public consultation, had no counterpart in the habitats legislation. The decision whether an EIA was required had to be taken early in the planning process, although a negative decision might be reviewed subsequently. Mitigation measures might properly be considered at the screening stage and, where appropriate, included in the environmental statement.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Supreme Council has refused to grant relief despite finding a legal defect in the procedure prior to a district council’s grant of planning permission for a development, in a key case relating to appropriate assessments, EIA assessments and mitigation measures.’
Local Government Lawyer, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Earlier this month judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal in R v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2015] EWCA Crim 960, examining what should be done when a corporate offender’s turnover is so large that it falls outside the scale set down in the sentencing guidelines. This is the first case of its kind to come before the Court of Appeal since publication of the Definitive Guideline for Environmental Offences by the Sentencing Council in July 2014. Rejecting Thames Water’s appeal against a £250,000 fine, the court said that fines levied against very large companies “had to bring home the appropriate message to the directors and shareholders of the company” and could go as high as 100% of pre-tax profits. ‘
Henderson Chambers, June 2015
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024