Moggridge & Anor v National Assembly for Wales & Anor

Moggridge & Anor v National Assembly for Wales & Anor

The orders were lawfully confirmed as the secondary purpose (traffic reduction and associated public benefits) was independently justified, and the minister had proper regard to the Habitats Directive, reserving the substantive environmental compliance for the licence stage. There was no procedural unfairness or illegality in the process.

Parties
Claimant: Harry Treherne Moggridge; Claimant: Terence Morgan; Respondent: National Assembly for Wales; Respondent: Caerphilly County Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Orders, Side Road Orders, Habitats Directive Compliance, Planning Permission, Costs
Administrative Law Environmental Law Compulsory Purchase Compulsory Purchase Orders Side Road Orders Habitats Directive Compliance Planning Permission Costs

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Treherne Moggridge

Claimant

Terence Morgan

Claimant

National Assembly for Wales

Respondent

Caerphilly County Borough Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confirmation of compulsory purchase and side road orders was lawful given the failure of the primary purpose advanced by the council.
  2. 2 Whether the minister and council complied with regulation 3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 and the Habitats Directive.

Ratio Decidendi

The orders were lawfully confirmed as the secondary purpose (traffic reduction and associated public benefits) was independently justified, and the minister had proper regard to the Habitats Directive, reserving the substantive environmental compliance for the licence stage. There was no procedural unfairness or illegality in the process.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Order for costs in favour of the first respondent against the claimants, assessed summarily at £6,887.75.
  • No order for a second set of costs in favour of the second respondent.