Peart, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

For Aarhus costs protection, a judicial review claim falls within Article 9(3) where it alleges that a decision contravenes legislation whose purpose or subject matter relates to the environment, its protection or regulation. It is insufficient that a claim merely concerns environmental effects or arises under non-environmental legislation. The court may grant extensions of time where the three-stage approach and the interests of justice justify doing so. An environmental-information claim requires an identified request and decision, and judicial review is unavailable where an effective statutory appeal provides an alternative remedy. A costs-capping order requires public interest proceedings, not merely novel issues or a general interest in scrutiny.

The claimant, a sheep farmer, brought judicial review proceedings challenging the calculation of subsidy entitlement under the Single Payment Scheme in respect of surplus grazing on Burnhope Moor. He asserted that the claim was an Aarhus Convention claim and sought the associated costs limits under CPR 46.26. The defendant initially accepted that status but later sought permission to amend its Acknowledgement of Service and dispute it. The claimant also sought extensions of time, amendments to his grounds, and, alternatively, a costs-capping order under section 88 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

The court had to determine the procedural applications, whether the claim alleged contraventions of environmental law within Article 9(3), whether the proposed Article 9(1) case was arguable, and whether the statutory conditions for costs capping were met.

1. Procedural extensions. Applying the three-stage approach in R. (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633 and Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, the court granted both retrospective extensions. The claimant’s late financial schedule was serious and significant in context, but refusal would expose him to disproportionate costs. The defendant’s late challenge to Aarhus status was also serious and significant. The initial acknowledgement had accepted the status and risked misleading the claimant, but the agreed stay meant that no material prejudice resulted.
2. Amendments. Permission was refused for the proposed procedural-fairness amendments because the claimant already possessed the relevant information when the claim was issued and the proposed case had no real prospect of success. Permission was granted for paragraphs 94, 95A, 95B and 95C concerning Article 9(3), but refused for paragraphs 93 and 95I. The proposed Article 9(1) amendments were refused because no specific request for environmental information or identifiable decision had been pleaded, and an effective alternative remedy was available.
3. Article 9(3). HM Treasury & Others v Global Feedback Limited and WWF UK [2025] EWCA Civ 624 established that the complaint must concern a decision, act or omission contravening national law which itself relates to the environment. A merely environmental impact, or breach of a general public-law principle under non-environmental legislation, is insufficient. The legislation implementing the Single Payment Scheme pursued agricultural and environmental protection through cross-compliance requirements. The claim therefore fell within Article 9(3), and the CPR 46.26 costs limits applied.
4. Alternative costs capping. The claim did not satisfy section 88 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Its likely direct effects were confined to a small number of persons, the relevant payment schemes were being phased out, and novelty did not itself establish a point of law of general public importance. The court nevertheless found that, if the threshold had been met, the claimant would withdraw without protection and it would be reasonable for him to do so.
5. Orders. The costs-capping application was dismissed. Costs were costs in the case. The judicial review was directed to an expedited three-day hearing in the week commencing 12 October 2026, or as soon thereafter as the court could accommodate it.