Nigel Mott v Environment Agency

The court has a wide, open-ended discretion under section 7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to extend the one-year limitation period where equitable in all the circumstances. The court must assess the balance of justice between the parties, giving appropriate weight to the length and explanation of delay, the parties’ conduct, prejudice, the effect on the administration of justice, the merits assumed for this purpose, and proportionality. No fixed checklist applies. Significant delay may alone justify refusal in an appropriate case, but an intelligible explanation, advance notice of the claim and absence of evidenced prejudice may justify an extension.

The claimant sought damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 for alleged interference with his property rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol arising from fishing-licence catch limits imposed by the Environment Agency for the 2015–2018 seasons.

The claim was issued on 17 December 2020, outside the primary one-year limitation period. Earlier proceedings concerning the 2012–2014 seasons had proceeded through the appellate courts and resulted in an award of damages. The preliminary issue was whether time should be extended under section 7(5)(b) so that the later claim could proceed.

1. Discretion. Section 7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 confers a wide, open-ended and unfettered discretion. The court must consider whether an extension is equitable having regard to all the circumstances. The statutory test must not be rewritten by importing the language of section 33(3) of the Limitation Act 1980, although factors of that kind may be relevant.
2. Relevant considerations. The court should weigh the overall balance of justice and fairness between the parties. Relevant considerations include the length and reasons for delay, the claimant’s knowledge of the need to sue, the conduct of the public authority, the cogency of the evidence, prejudice, any impact on the administration of justice, the apparent merits assumed for the preliminary issue, and proportionality. No predetermined list governs the exercise.
3. The delay was substantial and counted against the claimant. However, it had an intelligible explanation: he had awaited the outcome of connected and uncertain litigation pursued by the defendant, during which he remained deprived of compensation and continued to experience the effects of later decisions. He had given the defendant advance and increasingly particularised notice of his intention to claim.
4. The defendant produced no evidence of forensic prejudice or adverse impact on the administration of justice. The claim was not an ambush, and the claimant’s unusual circumstances meant that no comparable body of claims was likely to follow. The claim was substantial and important to the claimant, so proportionality favoured permitting it to proceed.
5. The court rejected the submission that the case fell within the approach indicated in Solaria Energy. Although the delay was long, its explanation, the defendant’s notice and the absence of evidenced prejudice materially distinguished the circumstances.
6. It was equitable in all the circumstances to extend time. The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the claimant, allowing the claim to proceed.