Packham v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

Packham v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

The application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused because it was not made promptly and, in any event, all grounds of challenge were unarguable. The Oakervee Review and the decision to proceed with HS2 were macro-political, subject only to light touch review, and no significant departures from the terms of reference or failures to consider relevant environmental or climate change matters were established. There was no breach of legitimate expectation. Even if arguable, the balance of convenience favoured allowing the clearance works to proceed.

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 / Ruling on Permission and Interim Injunction
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused; interim injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Legitimate Expectation, Environmental Impact Assessment, Climate Change, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Parliamentary Process, Interim Injunctions
Administrative Law Environmental Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Legitimate Expectation Environmental Impact Assessment Climate Change 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 / Ruling on Permission and Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to proceed with HS2 was unlawful due to process flaws in the Oakervee Review (OR)
  2. 2 Whether the decision failed to properly consider environmental impacts and climate change commitments
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of legitimate expectation regarding the OR process

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused because it was not made promptly and, in any event, all grounds of challenge were unarguable. The Oakervee Review and the decision to proceed with HS2 were macro-political, subject only to light touch review, and no significant departures from the terms of reference or failures to consider relevant environmental or climate change matters were established. There was no breach of legitimate expectation. Even if arguable, the balance of convenience favoured allowing the clearance works to proceed.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused; interim injunction refused.

Orders

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