Eco-Sud and two others v Minister of Environment, Solid Waste and Climate Change and another (Mauritius)

Section 54(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 2002 imposes two cumulative standing requirements: an appellant must be a person aggrieved and must show likely undue prejudice.

The requirement of being a person aggrieved is broad and context-specific. In environmental appeals, genuine interest, knowledge, expertise, prior involvement and participation in the consultation process may be relevant. The merits threshold is low and should not filter out arguable environmental issues.

Undue prejudice is not confined to economic loss or interference with private rights. It may include harm to an environmental interest where the appellant has a genuine interest and sufficient knowledge of the environmental feature concerned.

Eco-Sud and two others v Minister of Environment, Solid Waste and Climate Change and another concerned an environmental association’s appeal against the Minister’s approval of an Environmental Impact Assessment licence for a major residential development near protected wetlands in Mauritius.

The Environment and Land Use Appeal Tribunal ruled that Eco-Sud lacked standing under section 54(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 2002. The Supreme Court of Mauritius quashed that ruling and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Minister and the Ministry appealed to the Privy Council, arguing that Eco-Sud could not satisfy either the aggrieved-person or undue-prejudice requirement.

The central issues were whether the two requirements were cumulative and whether environmental harm, without economic loss or interference with a private property interest, could amount to undue prejudice.

Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court was correct to quash the Tribunal’s ruling, although the Board did not finally determine whether Eco-Sud had standing.

1. Section 54(2)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 2002 contain separate and cumulative requirements. The use of and cannot be read as or. Both requirements must be established.
2. The expression person aggrieved has a broad, context-sensitive meaning. The Board applied the approach in Walton v The Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44, as explained in Duff v Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council [2023] NICA 22 and Mussington v Development Control Authority [2024] UKPC 3. Participation in prior objections or representations, a genuine interest in the environmental subject matter, sufficient knowledge, expertise, track record and previous involvement may all be relevant.
3. The merits, importance and consequences of the proposed appeal may also be considered, but the threshold is informed by the Tribunal’s power under section 5(8) of the Environment and Land Use Appeal Tribunal Act 2012 to dismiss only trivial, frivolous or vexatious appeals. Standing should not become a protracted preliminary hearing or a means of filtering out arguable environmental issues.
4. Undue prejudice under section 54(2)(b) is not limited to economic prejudice or interference with private interests. In an environmental context, harm to an interest in the environment may suffice where the appellant has a genuine interest and sufficient knowledge of the environmental aspect it seeks to protect. A narrower construction would produce absurd results and frustrate the environmental purpose of the Act.
5. Eco-Sud’s objections, expertise, environmental work, involvement in the affected area and supporting expert evidence illustrated why it might satisfy both requirements. The Board left that factual determination to the Tribunal.
6. The Board expressed concern that development had continued while the standing appeal remained unresolved. The environmental stewardship obligation in section 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 2002 applies to all parties and includes respect for procedural safeguards. Continued development would not, by itself, prevent a restoration order if the licence were later quashed.

• Privy Council: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court’s order quashing the Tribunal’s ruling was upheld.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius: Judgment dated 18 July 2023 quashed the Tribunal’s ruling and remitted the matter for reconsideration of standing.
• Environment and Land Use Appeal Tribunal: Ruling dated 6 October 2021 held that Eco-Sud was not a person aggrieved and could not show likely undue prejudice under section 54(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 2002.