King & Ors v Environment Agency [2018] EWHC 65 (QB) (19 January 2018)

King & Ors v Environment Agency [2018] EWHC 65 (QB) (19 January 2018)

The Environment Agency's approach to flood management at Minsterworth Ham did not amount to an unlawful interference with the claimants' property rights under A1P1 ECHR, as the strategy was justified, proportionate, and struck a fair balance between public and private interests. The claimants were not subject to discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, as their circumstances were not materially identical to those in other compensation schemes, and any differential treatment was objectively justified.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 65
Parties
Claimants: Christopher King and Others; Defendant: Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Human Rights Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Flood Risk Management, Discrimination, Compensation for Property Interference
Human Rights Law Environmental Law Public Law Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Article 14 ECHR Flood Risk Management Discrimination Compensation for Property Interference

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher King and Others

Claimants

Environment Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Human Rights Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment Agency's flood management strategy for Minsterworth Ham constitutes an interference with the claimants' property rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether any such interference strikes a fair balance between the general interest and the claimants' rights
  3. 3 Whether the claimants have suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with A1P1

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment Agency's approach to flood management at Minsterworth Ham did not amount to an unlawful interference with the claimants' property rights under A1P1 ECHR, as the strategy was justified, proportionate, and struck a fair balance between public and private interests. The claimants were not subject to discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, as their circumstances were not materially identical to those in other compensation schemes, and any differential treatment was objectively justified.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No declaration or compensation awarded to the claimants
  • No finding of unlawful discrimination