Maxey, R (On the Application Of) v High Speed 2 Ltd

Maxey, R (On the Application Of) v High Speed 2 Ltd

The Claimant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on the alleged breaches of Articles 2, 3, or 10 ECHR. The evidence shows the Defendant has taken reasonable steps to ensure safety and is not in breach of its obligations. Interim relief is not justified. Disclosure and expert evidence are not reasonably required at this stage. Paragraph 4(b) of the 1 February Order is set aside, but the remainder is maintained with a penal notice added to secure compliance.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Larch Maxey; Defendant: High Speed 2 Limited; Interested Party: The Secretary of State for Transport; Interested Party: The London Fire Commissioner; Interested Party: The High Court Enforcement Group Limited; Interested Party: Health and Safety Executive
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Applications Prior to Permission Determination
Outcome
Claimant's application dismissed except for setting aside paragraph 4(b) of the 1 February Order; Defendant's application granted with penal notice added to paragraph 4 as varied.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Trespass, Injunctions, European Convention on Human Rights, Judicial Review Procedure
Public Law Human Rights Civil Procedure Interim Relief Trespass Injunctions European Convention on Human Rights Judicial Review Procedure

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Larch Maxey

Claimant

High Speed 2 Limited

Defendant

The Secretary of State for Transport

Interested Party

The London Fire Commissioner

Interested Party

The High Court Enforcement Group Limited

Interested Party

Health and Safety Executive

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Applications Prior to Permission Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's extraction operation breaches Articles 2, 3, or 10 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether interim relief should be granted to halt extraction operations and impose additional requirements on the Defendant
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence and disclosure should be permitted at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on the alleged breaches of Articles 2, 3, or 10 ECHR. The evidence shows the Defendant has taken reasonable steps to ensure safety and is not in breach of its obligations. Interim relief is not justified. Disclosure and expert evidence are not reasonably required at this stage. Paragraph 4(b) of the 1 February Order is set aside, but the remainder is maintained with a penal notice added to secure compliance.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application dismissed except for setting aside paragraph 4(b) of the 1 February Order; Defendant's application granted with penal notice added to paragraph 4 as varied.

Orders

  • Claimant's application for interim relief refused.
  • Claimant's application for site visit and disclosure refused.