Aarhus Convention update: Government still ignoring private nuisance claims

26 January 2017 by

F_AarhusConventionIn November 2016, the Government responded in rather disappointing terms (here) to a consultation about amending its costs rules in civil cases to reflect the requirements of the Aarhus Convention.

Article 9 of this Convention says that members of the public should be able to challenge environmental decisions, and the procedures for doing so shall be adequate and effective and “not prohibitively expensive. Aarhus starters may want to have a look at my bluffers guide to Aarhus – here.

First, the limited bit of good news in the governmental response.

Statutory reviews

The Government recognised the anomaly arising out of the fact that whilst domestic rules for judicial review are governed by Aarhus-compliant cost rules, statutory reviews of planning decisions are not. The Court of Appeal in Venn (see my post here) so ruled. Mrs Venn wanted to stop her neighbour developing his garden. The neighbour had won a planning appeal, and she wanted to bring a claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) challenging that win. S.288 adopts judicial review principles, though, unlike judicial review, the backing for it is statutory rather than the common law.

In CPR 45.41 to 45.44 & Practice Direction 45, someone who brings a judicial review “all or part of which is subject to the provisions” of the Aarhus Convention may not be ordered to pay costs exceeding £5,000 for individuals and £10,000 for others. So this caps the costs you might be expected to pay if you lose. Mrs Venn wanted a cost cap so she knew where she stood before she got herself into these proceedings.

The Court of Appeal said that the costs rules were applicable only to judicial reviews, not other challenges falling within the Convention (even though they walked and talked like judicial reviews). They reached this view reluctantly and took some comfort, in November 2014, that Government was looking at the problem.

Well, Government spent 2 years looking at a clear anomaly (compare and contrast what the UK is going to have to do in the under next 2 years under Article 50), and it has now finally decided to legislate this away by applying the same regime to both sorts of challenges. Phew.

The rest

The bad news is contained in the rest of the recommendations, the effect of which will be to complicate and thus render more expensive a currently simple system in the CPR which I have briefly referred to above for determining costs caps. This is detailed stuff, albeit important – for an excellent summary see James Maurici Q.C.’s table linked to his post here.

I shall concentrate on one important issue which the Government has truly ducked in the response.

Private nuisance

The protections under the Aarhus Convention are not limited to public law proceedings. That much is clear from Art.9(3) itself which is applicable to “judicial procedures to challenge acts or omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene national law relating to the environment.” Not very difficult to decipher the words underlined. And Art.9(4) applies the prohibition against prohibitive costs to all such procedures.

Despite those words in Art.9(3), the Government has tried to draw a distinction between public law cases and environmental cases raising private law issues such as in the private law of nuisance.

For non-lawyers, a private nuisance is when you get stunk out of your home or driven to complain to the police about next door’s noise or when your neighbour funnels polluted water across your land or sends clouds of dust onto your garden or washing.

This restrictive reading of Art.9(3) was tried out by the private law defendant in Morgana case of mine, and did not receive a warm reception from the Court of Appeal. As it said:

However, a literal reading of the provisions does not appear to support that restriction. The “public” as defined may be a single natural person, and the proceedings may be in respect of acts or omissions of “private persons”. We doubt in any event whether it is helpful in practice to draw such a clear distinction. In the present case, the claimants’ action is no doubt primarily directed to the protection of their own private rights, but the nuisance if it exists affects the whole locality. The public aspect is underlined by the interest of the Agency and the Council.

The CA went on to say that it would

 proceed on the basis that the Convention is capable of applying to private nuisance proceedings such as in this case.

It concluded that there was no direct claim under the Convention itself. International treaties need implementing domestically before they become domestically enforceable, as the Supreme Court has reminded us recently in the Brexit decision here, and my clients could not simply rely on the Convention without more.

The next stage in the saga came in Austin v. Miller Argent in 2014 hereand my post here, a claim against the operators of an open cast mine/reclamation, again not a public authority. Mrs Austin relied upon Article 9(3) on a costs issue.  The Court of Appeal (following Morgan) thought there was no reason in principle why a private nuisance claim could not fall within Article 9(3) and be protected by Article 9(4). They added a rider: whether it did so would depend on whether the complaint was closely linked to the particular issues regulated by the Convention and would, if successful, confer environmental benefits.

By this time, and as a result of an earlier reverse in the courts (another one of mine – here), Mrs Austin had written to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) complaining about the UK system of costs in environmental cases. And before that, the Environmental Law Foundation (more confessions – I now chair it – see here for what it does) had complained about forthcoming changes in the costs rules which would make it more difficult to start such claims.

These complaints (communications, in Aarhus-speak) rumbled along but by 2015 the ACCC had sent out draft findings of non-compliance to Government. These findings were finalised in November 2016: see here. Their gist was that Article 9(3) did apply to such private nuisance actions and that the UK was in breach of it because its costs rules made such claims prohibitively expensive. So the body set up to assess whether contracting parties were obeying the Convention had decided that the UK was non-compliant on this ground.

Cue the Government in its response the same month, November 2016. It recorded (para.117) the fact that respondents had referred to the ACCC findings and Austin – but it did not acknowledge that the ACCC had found that the Government was in breach of the Convention.

Its response was to decide (para.14) that it did not intend to amend the costs rules.

This is because the ECPR [the costs rules] was not designed with these cases in mind. Defendants in these cases are not necessarily public authorities, meaning that the costs cap would not necessarily be appropriate.

I agree that public law costs rules have to be rather different from private law costs rules, but you cannot cop out of the latter because you wrongly in the past only applied your mind to the former. It needs a bit of thought, but that is what governments are for, and Government has been gaily modifying the costs rules in private cases for the last 10 years or so when it wanted to.

The merest sop is implicitly extended to the ACCC findings:

The government will continue to consider how best to address these cases.

Stand back a bit. The Courts of Appeal in Morgan in 2009 and Austin in 2014 in effect warned the Ministry of Justice that MoJ had misunderstood the scope of Art.9(3). There had been criticism of UK costs bills for many years. Add these together and there was an obvious breach of Art.9 – there are no steps to prevent costs being prohibitively  expensive in private law nuisance claims. Despite that, MoJ spent 3 years or so contesting the ACCC communications, and, despite having been found wrong there in 2015/16, promises to do no more than think about it.

One has to say that Government is ignoring Aarhus, when it chooses, as it does here. Bottom line – it does not have financial teeth, like EU infraction judgments, which can turn themselves into daily fines for non-compliance.

Conclusion

The problem of getting an individual private law nuisance claim up and running for all but the most wealthy people remains. Until April 2013, the costs rules enabled claimants to recover the costs of insuring the possibility of them losing from the defendants if they won. Government got rid of that – it had its flaws, but something needs to replace it. Multiple claims may still be able to get off the ground, but the handful of clients I had in Morgan would not even begin to get off the ground these days without some costs protection. So, please, a little more action, and less prevarication, from Government in response to what is now an adjudged Aarhus Convention infringement.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

2 comments


  1. swan101 says:

    David, excellent points. We await the World Health Organisation’s 2016 Noise Guidelines with interest – due mid 2017. For sight of 2 letters, one of which is an Open letter to WHO officials re. negative noise impacts – signed by 148 concerned citizens globally, of whom a high proportion were high ranking health and engineering professionals, go to http://www.windsofjustice.org.uk

  2. swan101 says:

    Reblogged this on UPPER SONACHAN WIND FARM and commented:
    We also await the World Health Organisation’s 2016 Noise Guidelines with interest – due mid 2017. For sight of Open letter to WHO re. negative noise impacts – signed by 148 of whom a high proportion were high ranking health and engineering professionals, go to http://www.windsofjustice.org.uk

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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 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 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 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 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 Obituary 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 Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence 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 Syria Tax technology Terrorism 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 Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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: