Edwards, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency & Anor

A person affected by an environmental decision may have a sufficient interest to challenge it even if they took no part in the preceding consultation. Participation in consultation is not a condition of standing where the claimant is affected by the decision’s outcome.

A claim may amount to an abuse of process if a claimant is used solely to obtain public funding, but that depends on the particular facts. Where the claimant is himself affected and has a sufficient interest, the possibility that others encouraged or supported the claim does not, without more, make the proceedings abusive.

Rugby Ltd operated a cement plant under the integrated pollution control regime. The Environment Agency later issued a permit under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, including authority to conduct trials using tyre chips as a fuel substitute.

A local inhabitant sought judicial review, principally alleging non-compliance with Council Directive 85/337/EEC because no environmental statement had been published. He also alleged failure to use the best available techniques. Sullivan J refused permission without a hearing, finding insufficient interest and other deficiencies. On renewal, the court was asked to decide standing and abuse of process before the merits.

1. Standing. The application to renew permission was allowed to proceed on the issue of standing. Section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 requires sufficient interest, but it does not require a claimant to have participated in the consultation which preceded the challenged decision.
2. A person affected by the outcome may leave representative bodies, public authorities or pressure groups to make representations. Inactivity during consultation does not remove an otherwise sufficient interest. Mr Edwards’ status as an inhabitant of Rugby, including while temporarily homeless, was capable of giving him a sufficient interest because the permitted trials might affect the local environment.
3. Abuse of process. The authorities concerning children being used to bring education challenges for funding purposes did not establish a general rule preventing claims in other fields. A claim brought in the name of a person solely to obtain public funding may constitute an abuse, and it is unnecessary to show that avoiding adverse costs was an additional purpose. The question is fact-sensitive.
4. The present case was materially different from a parent’s school-admission challenge brought in the child’s name. Mr Edwards was himself affected by the permit decision and there was no legal impediment to his having sufficient interest. The Legal Services Commission was aware of the relevant circumstances and had continued the funding certificate. The claim therefore was not an abuse of the court’s process, even if he had been encouraged to act as claimant to obtain funding.
5. The claim was to proceed to a further hearing on the Directive and best available techniques issues. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was joined as a defendant.

Sullivan J refused permission to proceed with the judicial review claim without a hearing. On renewal, this court determined the discrete issue of standing and directed that permission on the remaining issues be considered at a full hearing.