Granger-Taylor, R (on the application of) v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd & Anor

Granger-Taylor, R (on the application of) v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd & Anor

The claimant failed to demonstrate, on the evidence, that the Three Tunnels design is so inherently flawed that no engineering solution could be found to construct it safely. The Defendants have not committed to proceed regardless of risk, and further detailed design and review are required before implementation. The threshold for engagement of Article 8 and A1P1 is not met on the facts as they stand, and even if engaged, the interference is justified and proportionate given the statutory framework, available remedies, and public interest in the HS2 project. There is no breach of the duty of candour as the relevant documents do not yet exist.

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
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), A1 P1 ECHR (peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions), Infrastructure Projects, Planning Law, Environmental Law
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) A1 P1 ECHR (peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) Infrastructure Projects Planning Law +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 violating Article 8 and A1P1 of the ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants have breached their duty of candour in failing to disclose relevant risk assessments and engineering evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the decision to proceed with the Three Tunnels design is proportionate and justified under the Convention.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate, on the evidence, that the Three Tunnels design is so inherently flawed that no engineering solution could be found to construct it safely. The Defendants have not committed to proceed regardless of risk, and further detailed design and review are required before implementation. The threshold for engagement of Article 8 and A1P1 is not met on the facts as they stand, and even if engaged, the interference is justified and proportionate given the statutory framework, available remedies, and public interest in the HS2 project. There is no breach of the duty of candour as the relevant documents do not yet exist.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed