Robert Zachery Cox, R (on the application of) v Forestry Commission

A judicial review challenge must identify the decision or policy actually under challenge and must be brought promptly. A later request for reconsideration does not create a fresh decision where it merely confirms an existing policy and no new material factor has emerged. A lawful policy does not become irrational merely because a claimant alleges continuing harm, unless there has been a material factual change making its continued implementation irrational. Clear, concise grounds are essential because the court’s jurisdiction is constrained by their scope. Where a claim is substantially out of time, lacks merit and has no proper application for an extension, permission may be refused in the public interest and for good administration.

The claimant renewed an application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Forestry Commission. He challenged its refusal to undertake an urgent review of continued clear-felling in the New Forest National Park and elsewhere in England, and sought disclosure, injunctive relief and declarations.

Calver J had refused permission, holding that the real challenge was to the established clear-felling policy, that the claim was out of time, and that no material factual change made continued implementation irrational. The renewed application raised whether the June 2023 letter was a reviewable decision, whether new information concerning pine martens or cumulative environmental harm justified reconsideration, and whether the claim had been brought promptly.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application was dismissed for the reasons given by Calver J, with which the court agreed entirely.
2. The claimant’s real challenge was to the long-established clear-felling policy, implemented through the New Forest Inclosures Forest Plan 2019–2029. The letter of 20 June 2023 did not constitute a new reviewable decision. It merely stated that clear-felling was being carried out under an unchallenged policy and that no review was required beyond the review provided for by that policy.
3. The claim was substantially out of time. The claimant had become aware of the relevant activity in November or December 2022, but issued the claim on 8 September 2023. No application for an extension of time had been made. The court accepted that extending time would be detrimental to good administration and contrary to the public interest, particularly given the lack of merit in the claim.
4. No new material factor had emerged which rendered continued implementation of the policy irrational. The alleged information concerning successful pine-marten breeding was misconceived, and the asserted cumulative and irreversible harms did not establish irrationality.
5. The grounds were excessively long and diffuse and failed to comply with paragraph 7.3 of the Administrative Court Guide 2023. Such lack of clarity increases the risk of disputes and costs, and the High Court’s jurisdiction remains confined by the pleaded grounds.
6. The claim was treated as an Aarhus claim. Capped costs of £5,000 were awarded to the defendant.

The application was renewed after Calver J refused permission. This court reconsidered the matter afresh and upheld that refusal.