Secretary of State for the Home Department v Campaign To End All Animal Experiments (t/a the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection), R (on the application of) [2008] EWCA Civ 417 (23 April 2008)

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Campaign To End All Animal Experiments (t/a the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection), R (on the application of) [2008] EWCA Civ 417 (23 April 2008)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in law in finding that the Chief Inspector and Secretary of State misconstrued the Guidance regarding severity limits. The anticipation of humane killing as an endpoint does not necessarily require a 'substantial' severity limit; the categorisation is a matter of expert scientific judgment. There was no material misconstruction or irrationality in the Chief Inspector's conclusions, and the court should not substitute its own view for that of the expert absent such error.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 417
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Respondent/claimant: The Queen on the Application of Campaign to End All Animal Experiments (trading as The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; declaration set aside; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Licensing of Animal Experiments, Severity Limits in Scientific Procedures, Guidance Under Animals (scientific Procedures) Act 1986
Administrative Law Animal Welfare Law Public Law Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Licensing of Animal Experiments Severity Limits in Scientific Procedures Guidance Under Animals (scientific Procedures) Act 1986

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Appellant/defendant

The Queen on the Application of Campaign to End All Animal Experiments (trading as The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Inspector and Secretary of State misconstrued paragraphs 5.40 to 5.42 of the Guidance under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 regarding severity limits for animal experiments.
  2. 2 Whether anticipated humane killing as an endpoint requires a 'substantial' severity limit for a protocol.
  3. 3 Whether the judicial review judge erred in law in finding legal error or perversity in the Chief Inspector's scientific judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in law in finding that the Chief Inspector and Secretary of State misconstrued the Guidance regarding severity limits. The anticipation of humane killing as an endpoint does not necessarily require a 'substantial' severity limit; the categorisation is a matter of expert scientific judgment. There was no material misconstruction or irrationality in the Chief Inspector's conclusions, and the court should not substitute its own view for that of the expert absent such error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; declaration set aside; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The declaration that the Chief Inspector and Secretary of State misconstrued the Guidance is set aside.
  • The remainder of the claim is dismissed.