Robert Zachery Cox, R (on the application of) v Forestry Commission
The application is refused because the challenge is to a long-established policy, not a new decision; the claim was not brought promptly; no new material facts justify review; and there is no legal duty to provide reasons for ongoing clear-felling under the adopted policy.
- Parties
- Claimant: Robert Zachary Cox; Defendant: Forestry Commission
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
- Outcome
- Permission for judicial review refused
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Clear Felling Policy, Forestry Management, Protected Species, Procedural Impropriety, Human Rights
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Zachary Cox
Claimant
Forestry Commission
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the refusal to review and continue the clear-felling policy is unlawful
- 2 Whether the claim was brought promptly
- 3 Whether there is a material factual change justifying review of the policy
Ratio Decidendi
The application is refused because the challenge is to a long-established policy, not a new decision; the claim was not brought promptly; no new material facts justify review; and there is no legal duty to provide reasons for ongoing clear-felling under the adopted policy.
Court Disposition
Permission for judicial review refused
Orders
- Renewed application for permission for judicial review refused
- Capped costs of £5,000 awarded to the Defendant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment