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 management of the Minsterworth Ham embankment did not constitute an unlawful interference with the claimants' property rights under A1P1 ECHR. The Agency's actions were consistent with statutory powers and national policy, and the claimants did not bear an individual and excessive burden. No relevant discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR was established, as the claimants were not in a materially identical position to those compensated elsewhere. The statutory scheme for flood risk management and compensation was rational and ECHR-compliant.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 65 (QB)
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 (a1 P1), Article 14 ECHR (discrimination), Flood Risk Management, Compensation for Property Interference, Public Authority Duties, Planning Policy and Flood Defences
Human Rights Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Property Law Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (a1 P1) Article 14 ECHR (discrimination) Flood Risk Management Compensation for Property Interference +2 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 18 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 claimants' property rights under A1P1 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether any such interference strikes a fair balance between public interest and 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 management of the Minsterworth Ham embankment did not constitute an unlawful interference with the claimants' property rights under A1P1 ECHR. The Agency's actions were consistent with statutory powers and national policy, and the claimants did not bear an individual and excessive burden. No relevant discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR was established, as the claimants were not in a materially identical position to those compensated elsewhere. The statutory scheme for flood risk management and compensation was rational and ECHR-compliant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No declaration or compensation awarded to claimants
  • No finding of unlawful discrimination or breach of A1P1 ECHR