What can an Environmental Tribunal do?

6 June 2011 by

Access to environmental justice is a subject close to the hearts of various contributors to this blog, as one can see from the posts listed below. But not only to them – Sullivan LJ was the chairman of the working group that in 2008 wrote Ensuring Access to Environmental Justice in England and Wales”. Jackson LJ returned to the issue in his report on the costs of civil litigation. In December last year the Supreme Court referred to the Court of Justice of the EU, Edwards, a case about the English costs regime, and whether it complies with the Aarhus convention. Finally, in April 2011 the European Commission said it was going to refer the UK to the CJEU for failing to comply with the costs element of the Convention.

So the UKELA seminar on “Developing the new Environmental Tribunal” hosted by Simmons & Simmons on 16th May 2011, was timely, to say the least, particularly as the speakers included Lord Justice Sullivan, and Lord Justice Carnwath the senior president of the Tribunals, and Professor Richard Macrory Q.C., author of a new report on the Environment Tribunal.

Richard Macrory: the Environment Tribunal

The Tribunal was set up in 2010, and has jurisdiction to hear appeals against civil sanctions imposed by regulators. It has a number of advantages as an appeal forum. Most importantly for potential Aarhus compliance, it is cheap – parties normally bear their own costs, subject to the small chance of costs awards to penalize unreasonable conduct. It is also a tribunal with expertise in environmental issues, with specialised judges and a flexible procedure.

One or two highly specialised categories of appeal have been added to its remit, namely the Eco-Design for Energy-Using Products (amendment) (Civil Sanction) Regulations 2010, and the Single Use Carrier Bag Charges (Wales) Regulations 2010. Appeals in respect of sanctions under these provisions are unlikely to rush the Tribunal off its feet. However, and this is Macrory’s main point, there are currently 64 separate legislative provisions concerning appeals and challenges to decision under various acts of parliament and statutory instruments, all going places other than the Tribunal. The appeal fora include the County Court, the High Court, the Magistrates Court, various different secretaries of state (DEFRA, BIS, DECC etc), and OFWAT. Somewhat bizarrely, for certain health and safety matters, the appeal goes to the Employment Tribunal.

Macrory described this as haphazard, and suggested that the current system lacks principle. He said that the present array of appeal routes should be transferred to the Tribunal, although by increments rather than at a single stroke. For future legislation, there should be a presumption that anyone seeking a licence or served with a notice imposing an obligation (such as to remediate) would have an unrestricted right of appeal to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal currently has no jurisdiction to hear judicial review claims. Macrory suggested that this be kept under review, and commented that in a number of other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, there is just such a right for all parties, including affected third parties, to go to such tribunals to challenge the grant of permits. He noted that many judicial reviews are brought, often by industry, which are in substance merits reviews but dressed in the clothes of JR.

If there is a reform of the current High Court costs rules to make them comply with Aarhus and its requirement that costs in environmental matters not be “prohibitively expensive”, one effect might be to increase the number of challenges brought to environmental decisions. This would place additional strain on the Administrative Court. Transferring some jurisdiction for environmental JR to the Tribunal would have the advantages of relieving the Admin Court, and dealing with the claims in a cost-effective specialist court.

Panel discussion

Heading the discussion was Robert McCracken QC, the President of the Lands Tribunal George Bartlett Q.C., and Rynd Smith of the Planning Inspectorate. One issue that sharply divided participants was Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Tribunal is supposed to promote other ways of resolving disputes, and ADR is one of them. The panel acknowledged that ADR can be a useful tool in horizontal disputes, i.e. between two parties of equal standing, such as the parties in a private law nuisance claim. However, how useful is it in vertical disputes, e.g. between an applicant and a regulator, with the chance of affected third parties wanting to be involved, such as residents, the applicant’s competitors etc? There was no consensus. In the view of this author, it depends. While it should be possible in theory for a regulator and an applicant to solve their differences out of court, as the number of parties increases the likelihood of being able to accommodate the competing agenda will diminish.

The Tribunal is still in its earliest days, but for political reasons it may not survive and acquire new powers. DEFRA has announced that there is to be a cross-government review of the civil sanctions system. The Environment Agency’s power to issue civil sanctions for permitting infringements was to have come into effect in April, but because of the DEFRA review this is now stalled. Its power to impose sanctions for other offences came in during January, and remains in force – but the Agency has not yet issued any sanctions.

A Radical Plan from Letwin

Meanwhile, cabinet office minister Oliver Letwin MP has come up with a different proposal: that the power to issue civil sanctions be taken away from regulators altogether, and instead transferred to the courts. If this was done, it would remove what is perhaps the most convenient solution to the costs/Aarhus problem. It would also get rid of the whole purpose of the civil sanctions in the first place, namely their flexibility as compared to the traditional courts system. Whether this visceral mistrust of the “bureaucrat” will blow over remains to be seen.

Related posts:

1 comment;

  1. Tony Baverstock says:

    “It is also a tribunal with expertise in environmental issues, with specialised judges and a flexible procedure”

    The question that none of these proposal address is how the expert panels and judges make the decision.

    Many environmental decisions involve complex scientific and economic issues. If we take the issue of, Climate Change, there are a range of opinions held by scientists and economists on anthropogenic global warming covering:

    1. Those who believe the evidence is clear the effect is proved and the damage will be significant
    2. Those who believe there is some evidence but the costs of taking action are more than the costs of the damage.
    3. Those who believe the evidence is clear but the effect is still in doubt.
    4. Those who believe the evidence is questionable.
    5. Those who believe there is insufficient understanding to draw any conclusion at this moment.
    6. Those who believe even if AGW is taking place it is insignificant compared to other climate forces.
    7. Those who believe the evidence does not exist.

    If you believe in 1 then you will take action no matter whet the economic costs, believe in 7 then you take no action.

    Understanding the AGW issue crosses complex mathematics and science issues. Then assessing the results of any action requires making economic projections.

    There is a whole body of highly qualified men and woman on all sides of this argument who disagree with each other.

    This is the nature of science, a hypothesis, is made, experiments carried out, and then if the hypothesis seems to be proved it becomes a theory. However you cannot prove the null hypotheses, so while a hypotheses may not be proved it does not mean it is wrong, further a theory may be proved but it can still turn out to be incorrect.

    How can a panel of experts or judges make a decision when highly qualified individuals within the relevant fields disagree?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: