Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 181 (Feb)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWHC 232 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)
Judge:

Owen J
Representation William Norris QC and Justine Thornton (instructed by Richard Buxton) for the claimants.
  Stephen Tromans QC and Colin Thomann (instructed by DEFRA Litigation & Prosecution Department) for the first defendant.
  Richard Drabble QC and Stephen Morgan (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell LLP) for the second defendant.
  Gregory Jones (instructed by Lester Aldridge LLP) for the first interested party.
  The second interested party did not appear and was not represented.
  Gordan Nardell (instructed by Graine O'Rourke, Head of Legal and Democratic Services) for the third interested party.
Judgment Dates: 16 February 2010

Catchwords

European Union - Environment - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Special protection area - Introduction of new type of ferry for use on route running between Lymington and Yarmouth - Whether proposal to introduce new ferries constituting 'plan' or 'project' within meaning of relevant directive - Whether competent authority existing for purposes of directive - Whether appropriate assessment carried out into effect of introduction on protected sites in Lymington area - Whether directive having been properly transposed into UK law at date decision to introduce new ferries made - Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, art 6(3) - Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, SI 1994/2716, regs 22-27, 48, Sch 1.

The Case

European Union Environment. The Administrative Court held that the decision of the second defendant to introduce a new type of ferry, known as 'the W class', for use on the route running between Lymington, off the south coast of England, and Yarmouth, in the Isle of Wight, was a project within the ambit of art6(3) of Council Directive (EEC) 92-43; that the only competent authority at the material time, namely the point at which the relevant decision was made, was the second defendant; that the relevant decision was fatally flawed and in consequence unlawful on the basis that the competent authority had not carried out an 'appropriate assessment'; and, further, that the Directive had not been fully and properly transposed into domestic law by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, SI1994-2716, in its original form.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
  • The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
  • Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
  • Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary