Mott & Anor v Environment Agency [2019] EWHC 1892 (Admin) (18 July 2019)

Mott & Anor v Environment Agency [2019] EWHC 1892 (Admin) (18 July 2019)

Compensation for unlawful interference with property rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR is to be assessed by comparing the claimant's position with and without the unlawful decision, not by reference to a hypothetical alternative lawful decision. The claimant is entitled to full compensation for actual financial loss directly caused by the unlawful act, and not an arbitrary or reduced sum. Losses in later years are not compensable unless those decisions are also found unlawful.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1892 (Admin)
Parties
First Claimant: Nigel Mott; Second Claimant: David Merrett; Defendant: Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Human Rights Act Damages Claim / Assessment of Compensation Following Liability Judgment
Outcome
Claim for compensation by Mr Mott allowed; claim by Mr Merrett refused permission to proceed.
Legal Topics
Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Compensation for Unlawful Administrative Action, Restitutio in Integrum, Damages Under Human Rights Act 1998
Human Rights Administrative Law Environmental Law Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Compensation for Unlawful Administrative Action Restitutio in Integrum Damages Under Human Rights Act 1998

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Mott

First Claimant

David Merrett

Second Claimant

Environment Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Human Rights Act Damages Claim / Assessment of Compensation Following Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should compensation be assessed for unlawful interference with property rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR?
  2. 2 Is compensation to be calculated on the basis of no catch limit or a hypothetical lawful catch limit?
  3. 3 Is compensation payable for losses in years after the challenged decisions?

Ratio Decidendi

Compensation for unlawful interference with property rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR is to be assessed by comparing the claimant's position with and without the unlawful decision, not by reference to a hypothetical alternative lawful decision. The claimant is entitled to full compensation for actual financial loss directly caused by the unlawful act, and not an arbitrary or reduced sum. Losses in later years are not compensable unless those decisions are also found unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim for compensation by Mr Mott allowed; claim by Mr Merrett refused permission to proceed.

Orders

  • Compensation of £187,278 awarded to Mr Mott, plus interest to be agreed or determined.
  • Permission for Mr Merrett to proceed with his separate claim refused.