Granger-Taylor, R (on the application of) v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1442 (Admin) (05 June 2020)

Granger-Taylor, R (on the application of) v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1442 (Admin) (05 June 2020)

The claimant has not demonstrated that the Three Tunnels design is so inherently flawed that no engineering solution could be found to construct it safely, nor that the defendants have committed to proceed regardless of safety. The risk of catastrophic collapse remains unproven on the evidence, and the defendants' staged approach to design, assessment, and review provides adequate safeguards. There is no current breach of Article 8 or A1P1 ECHR rights, and the interference is justified and proportionate given the public interest in HS2 and the available statutory and common law protections.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1442 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Hero Granger-Taylor; First Defendant: High Speed Two (HS2) Limited; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Article 8 ECHR, A1 P1 ECHR, Infrastructure Projects, Environmental Impact, Compulsory Purchase, Ground Settlement, Engineering Safety
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Planning Law Judicial Review Article 8 ECHR A1 P1 ECHR Infrastructure Projects Environmental Impact +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hero Granger-Taylor

Claimant

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Transport

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Three Tunnels design for HS2 poses an unacceptable risk of catastrophic collapse to the retaining wall near the claimant's property, thereby breaching Article 8 and A1P1 ECHR rights;
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants have failed in their duty of candour and to properly assess and disclose engineering risks;
  3. 3 Whether the interference with the claimant's property and home is justified and proportionate under the Convention.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has not demonstrated that the Three Tunnels design is so inherently flawed that no engineering solution could be found to construct it safely, nor that the defendants have committed to proceed regardless of safety. The risk of catastrophic collapse remains unproven on the evidence, and the defendants' staged approach to design, assessment, and review provides adequate safeguards. There is no current breach of Article 8 or A1P1 ECHR rights, and the interference is justified and proportionate given the public interest in HS2 and the available statutory and common law protections.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review refused; no declaration or relief granted to the claimant.