Greenpeace Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

Greenpeace Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

The Order was not ultra vires as the enabling statute did not require a specific scientific evidential threshold; the Minister acted within statutory powers for a proper purpose. The Minister's consideration of displacement and other concerns was sufficient and not irrational or procedurally unfair. The Order was lawfully made.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Greenpeace Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Permission to cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Statutory Interpretation, Consultation Requirements, Bycatch Regulation, Marine Conservation
Administrative Law Environmental Law Fisheries Law EU Law Judicial Review Ultra Vires Wednesbury Unreasonableness Statutory Interpretation +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenpeace Ltd

Applicant/claimant

Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the South-west Territorial Waters (Prohibition of Pair Trawling) Order 2004 was ultra vires the enabling statute
  2. 2 Whether the Minister failed to take into account a material consideration (displacement of fishing effort)
  3. 3 Whether the making of the Order was irrational or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Order was not ultra vires as the enabling statute did not require a specific scientific evidential threshold; the Minister acted within statutory powers for a proper purpose. The Minister's consideration of displacement and other concerns was sufficient and not irrational or procedurally unfair. The Order was lawfully made.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Permission to cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Permission to cross-appeal on costs refused