Murphy, Re Judicial Review [2017] NICA 51 (14 September 2017)

Murphy, Re Judicial Review [2017] NICA 51 (14 September 2017)

The requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive were satisfied prior to the 2011 Trunk Road Order; no further appropriate assessment was required by the passage of time or funding decision; the 2016 review complied with Article 6(2); mitigation measures were properly classified and consultation was adequate; the Minister's decision was lawful.

Citation
[2017] NICA 51
Parties
Applicant: Chris Murphy; Respondent: Minister for Infrastructure
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
14 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Decision Dismissing Application to Quash Minister's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Habitats Directive, Appropriate Assessment, Mitigation Vs Compensation, Judicial Review, Special Protection Areas, Trunk Road Orders
Environmental Law Administrative Law European Union Law Habitats Directive Appropriate Assessment Mitigation Vs Compensation Judicial Review Special Protection Areas +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chris Murphy

Applicant

Minister for Infrastructure

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Decision Dismissing Application to Quash Minister's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's decision to proceed with the road scheme was subject to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive
  2. 2 Whether Article 6(2) required a further appropriate assessment
  3. 3 Whether proposed measures were mitigation or compensation under Article 6(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive were satisfied prior to the 2011 Trunk Road Order; no further appropriate assessment was required by the passage of time or funding decision; the 2016 review complied with Article 6(2); mitigation measures were properly classified and consultation was adequate; the Minister's decision was lawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed