Cooper v HM Attorney General

Cooper v HM Attorney General

The Court held that although errors of Community law were made regarding the meaning of 'development consent' and the obligation to consider modifications under the EIA Directive, these errors were not manifest or sufficiently serious to trigger Köbler liability. The interpretation was reasonable given the state of law at the time, supported by domestic and European authorities, and procedural limitations under national law applied. Failure to refer the Wells point to the Court of Justice was excusable and did not amount to a sufficiently serious breach.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen Cooper; Respondent: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Determination of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Köbler Liability, Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, State Liability, Judicial Review, Limitation Periods, Direct Effect, Conforming Interpretation, Preliminary Reference
Administrative Law European Union Law Environmental Law Köbler Liability Environmental Impact Assessment Directive State Liability Judicial Review Limitation Periods +3 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Cooper

Appellant

HM Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Determination of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English courts committed errors of Community law in disposing of judicial review proceedings related to the White City development
  2. 2 Whether such errors were sufficiently serious to trigger State liability under Köbler v Austria

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that although errors of Community law were made regarding the meaning of 'development consent' and the obligation to consider modifications under the EIA Directive, these errors were not manifest or sufficiently serious to trigger Köbler liability. The interpretation was reasonable given the state of law at the time, supported by domestic and European authorities, and procedural limitations under national law applied. Failure to refer the Wells point to the Court of Justice was excusable and did not amount to a sufficiently serious breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed