King & Ors v Environment Agency

King & Ors v Environment Agency

The Environment Agency's policy regarding the Minsterworth Ham embankment does not amount to unlawful interference or control under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, as the embankment overall benefits the claimants and any detriment is justified by public interest and expert cost-benefit analysis. There is no excessive or individual burden imposed on the claimants, and the Agency's actions are not analogous to compensatable engineered flood storage schemes. There is no unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, as the claimants' situation is materially different from those who received compensation, and any differential treatment is justified.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher King and Others; Defendant: Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Flood Risk Management, Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Compensation for Property Interference, Judicial Review of Public Authority Policy
Human Rights Law Environmental Law Property Law Administrative Law Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Flood Risk Management Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR Compensation for Property Interference +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 2 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher King and Others

Claimant

Environment Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment Agency's policy regarding the Minsterworth Ham embankment constitutes interference or control of the claimants' property under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with A1P1
  3. 3 Whether the Agency's actions or omissions require compensation to the claimants for flood risk management

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment Agency's policy regarding the Minsterworth Ham embankment does not amount to unlawful interference or control under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, as the embankment overall benefits the claimants and any detriment is justified by public interest and expert cost-benefit analysis. There is no excessive or individual burden imposed on the claimants, and the Agency's actions are not analogous to compensatable engineered flood storage schemes. There is no unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, as the claimants' situation is materially different from those who received compensation, and any differential treatment is justified.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed