ARMSTRONGS AGGREGATES LIMITED v NATURAL ENGLAND

ARMSTRONGS AGGREGATES LIMITED v NATURAL ENGLAND

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because the statutory appeal under regulation 19 of the 2015 Regulations constituted an adequate alternative remedy, and the Part 8 claim was an attempt to circumvent the procedural protections of judicial review, including the requirements of promptness and last resort. The High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction, holding that the issues should be determined through the statutory appeal process, with the possibility of judicial review at a later stage if necessary.

Parties
Claimant: Armstrongs Aggregates Limited; Defendant: Natural England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (administrative/public Law) / Application to Strike Out Claim And/or Decline Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claim dismissed (struck out as abuse of process)
Legal Topics
Procedural Exclusivity, Alternative Remedy, Delay in Judicial Review, Human Rights Act 1998 (a1 P1), Environmental Damage Regulations, Statutory Appeals
Administrative Law Environmental Law Human Rights Procedural Exclusivity Alternative Remedy Delay in Judicial Review Human Rights Act 1998 (a1 P1) Environmental Damage Regulations +1 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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armstrongs Aggregates Limited

Claimant

Natural England

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (administrative/public Law) / Application to Strike Out Claim And/or Decline Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should determine questions of law regarding the applicability and invocability of the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015 to Qualifying Quarries in light of A1P1 rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, or whether the claim should be struck out due to procedural exclusivity, delay, and the existence of an adequate alternative remedy via statutory appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because the statutory appeal under regulation 19 of the 2015 Regulations constituted an adequate alternative remedy, and the Part 8 claim was an attempt to circumvent the procedural protections of judicial review, including the requirements of promptness and last resort. The High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction, holding that the issues should be determined through the statutory appeal process, with the possibility of judicial review at a later stage if necessary.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed (struck out as abuse of process)

Orders

  • Defendant's application for retrospective extension of time granted
  • Claimant's Part 8 claim dismissed