Mott, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 564 (17 June 2016)

Mott, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 564 (17 June 2016)

The Court of Appeal held that the Agency's decisions to impose catch limits were not irrational in the Wednesbury sense, as they were based on the best available scientific evidence at the time and within the Agency's margin of appreciation. However, the interference with Mr Mott's possessions was disproportionate under A1P1 because of the severe economic impact and lack of compensation, so the High Court's declaration of unlawfulness on A1P1 grounds and permission to amend for damages were upheld.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 564
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 / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Fisheries Regulation, Habitats Directive, Damages for Human Rights Breach
Administrative Law Environmental Law Human Rights Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Fisheries Regulation Habitats Directive +1 more

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 16 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 / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment Agency's imposition of catch limits on salmon fishing licences was irrational (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
  2. 2 Whether the catch limits unlawfully interfered with the claimant's right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (A1P1)
  3. 3 Whether the interference amounted to deprivation or control of possessions and if compensation was required

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Agency's decisions to impose catch limits were not irrational in the Wednesbury sense, as they were based on the best available scientific evidence at the time and within the Agency's margin of appreciation. However, the interference with Mr Mott's possessions was disproportionate under A1P1 because of the severe economic impact and lack of compensation, so the High Court's declaration of unlawfulness on A1P1 grounds and permission to amend for damages were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the Agency's decisions were not irrational is restored
  • Declaration that the Agency's decisions unlawfully interfered with Mr Mott's A1P1 rights is upheld