Mott, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency & Anor

Mott, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency & Anor

The Environment Agency's decisions to impose catch limits were not irrational in the Wednesbury sense, as the court must afford a wide margin of appreciation to technical and scientific regulatory decisions. However, the extent of the restriction imposed on Mr Mott's fishing rights amounted to a disproportionate interference with his possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, closer to deprivation than mere control, and required compensation to prevent a breach. The judge was correct to permit a late amendment to include a claim for damages.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Nigel Mott; Defendant/appellant: Environment Agency; Interested Party: David Merrett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Fishing Rights, Regulatory Decision Making, Article 1 of First Protocol (echr), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Compensation for Deprivation of Property
Environmental Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Fishing Rights Regulatory Decision Making Article 1 of First Protocol (echr) Wednesbury Unreasonableness Compensation for Deprivation of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Mott

Claimant/respondent

Environment Agency

Defendant/appellant

David Merrett

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment Agency's imposition of catch limits was irrational (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
  2. 2 Whether the catch limits unlawfully interfered with Mr Mott's peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the interference amounted to deprivation or control of property and if compensation was required

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment Agency's decisions to impose catch limits were not irrational in the Wednesbury sense, as the court must afford a wide margin of appreciation to technical and scientific regulatory decisions. However, the extent of the restriction imposed on Mr Mott's fishing rights amounted to a disproportionate interference with his possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, closer to deprivation than mere control, and required compensation to prevent a breach. The judge was correct to permit a late amendment to include a claim for damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the Agency's decisions were not irrational in the Wednesbury sense (appeal allowed on this ground)
  • Declaration that the Agency's decisions unlawfully interfered with Mr Mott's possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol (appeal dismissed on this ground)