Packham v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor [2020] EWHC 829 (Admin) (06 April 2020)

Packham v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor [2020] EWHC 829 (Admin) (06 April 2020)

The claim for judicial review was refused because the application was not made promptly, and none of the grounds advanced by the claimant had a realistic prospect of success. The decision to proceed with HS2 was a macro-political decision informed by the Oakervee Review but not constrained by it, and all relevant environmental and procedural matters had already been considered by Parliament and through statutory processes. The alleged defects in the Oakervee Review process and the environmental arguments did not amount to public law errors justifying intervention. Even if the claim had merit, the balance of convenience would not justify an interim injunction.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 829 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Christopher Packham CBE; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Transport; Second Defendant: The Prime Minister; Interested Party: HS2 Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused; interim injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Environmental Impact Assessment, Infrastructure Projects, Promptness in Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Common Law Powers, Interim Injunctions
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Judicial Review Environmental Impact Assessment Infrastructure Projects Promptness in Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness +2 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Packham CBE

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Transport

First Defendant

The Prime Minister

Second Defendant

HS2 Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to proceed with HS2 was unlawful due to process defects in the Oakervee Review
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to take into account relevant environmental considerations
  3. 3 Whether the application for judicial review was made promptly

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for judicial review was refused because the application was not made promptly, and none of the grounds advanced by the claimant had a realistic prospect of success. The decision to proceed with HS2 was a macro-political decision informed by the Oakervee Review but not constrained by it, and all relevant environmental and procedural matters had already been considered by Parliament and through statutory processes. The alleged defects in the Oakervee Review process and the environmental arguments did not amount to public law errors justifying intervention. Even if the claim had merit, the balance of convenience would not justify an interim injunction.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused; interim injunction refused.

Orders

  • Permission to bring judicial review proceedings is refused.
  • Application for interim injunction is refused.