Cooper v HM Attorney General [2008] EWHC 2178 (QB) (30 September 2008)

Cooper v HM Attorney General [2008] EWHC 2178 (QB) (30 September 2008)

No manifest error of Community law was committed by the English courts; any errors were not manifest at the time of judgment, and thus do not trigger State liability under Köbler. Judgments were consistent with Community law as interpreted then, and subsequent ECJ developments do not retrospectively render them manifestly erroneous.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2178
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Cooper; Defendant: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Damages for Judicial Error in Applying Community Law / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
State Liability for Judicial Error, Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, Judicial Review, Implementation of EU Directives, Limitation Periods
European Union Law Administrative Law Environmental Law State Liability for Judicial Error Environmental Impact Assessment Directive Judicial Review Implementation of EU Directives Limitation Periods

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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Cooper

Claimant

HM Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Damages for Judicial Error in Applying Community Law / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English courts erred in Community law in disposing of judicial review proceedings related to White City Development
  2. 2 Whether such errors were sufficiently serious to trigger State liability under ECJ jurisprudence

Ratio Decidendi

No manifest error of Community law was committed by the English courts; any errors were not manifest at the time of judgment, and thus do not trigger State liability under Köbler. Judgments were consistent with Community law as interpreted then, and subsequent ECJ developments do not retrospectively render them manifestly erroneous.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded
  • Claimant to pay costs