Badger Trust v The Welsh Ministers (includes Costs)

Badger Trust v The Welsh Ministers (includes Costs)

The Order was unlawful because it applied to the whole of Wales when the evidence and consultation only supported a cull in a limited area (IAPA); the Minister could not be satisfied as required by section 21(2) for the whole of Wales. The meaning of 'substantially reduce' in section 21(2)(b) requires more than a trivial reduction but less than almost complete elimination; however, a 9% reduction was not considered substantial by the majority. The Minister must consider the adverse effects of a cull and weigh them against the benefits before exercising discretion under section 21.

Parties
Appellant: Badger Trust; Respondent: The Welsh Ministers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Order quashed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review, Wildlife Protection, Discretionary Powers, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Animal Law Environmental Law Public Law Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review Wildlife Protection Discretionary Powers +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Badger Trust

Appellant

The Welsh Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'substantially reduce' in section 21(2)(b) Animal Health Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether the Minister must balance the benefit of disease reduction against the extent of killing wild animals under section 21(2)
  3. 3 Whether the Order could lawfully apply to the whole of Wales when evidence and consultation focused on a limited area

Ratio Decidendi

The Order was unlawful because it applied to the whole of Wales when the evidence and consultation only supported a cull in a limited area (IAPA); the Minister could not be satisfied as required by section 21(2) for the whole of Wales. The meaning of 'substantially reduce' in section 21(2)(b) requires more than a trivial reduction but less than almost complete elimination; however, a 9% reduction was not considered substantial by the majority. The Minister must consider the adverse effects of a cull and weigh them against the benefits before exercising discretion under section 21.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Order quashed

Orders

  • The Tuberculosis Eradication (Wales) Order 2009 is quashed.
  • Costs awarded to the appellants, limited to £20,000 (£10,000 below and £10,000 on appeal) as per the Protective Costs Order.