Energy Infrastructure in UK Law

He reported this to the Master who told him that there was no problem and did not even investigate, which seems to be a staggeringly complacent attitude in the face of tell-tale signs that something potentially serious was amiss with the preloading operation. However, far from paying heed to those tell-tale signs, the Master did not seek to dump ballast and level the Rig at 0200 hours on 9 January 2006.

On 22 July 2010 Segen applied for an Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion in respect of the current proposal. The request enclosed 'Pre-application information' which identified the type of turbine and the proposed location. It was said that substantial justification would be provided for the proposal in the Green Belt and early consultation would take place

It is now well settled that where Parliament by express direction or by necessary implication has authorised the construction and use of an undertaking or works, that carries with it an authority to do what is authorised with immunity from any action based on nuisance.

But in my opinion the statutory authority extends beyond merely authorising a change in the environment and an alteration of standard. To the extent and only to the extent that the actual nuisance (if any) caused by the actual refinery and its operation exceeds that for which immunity is conferred, the plaintiff has a remedy.

In all such cases I think the courts should - for the purposes of discovery - treat all the persons interested as if they were partners in a single firm or departments in a single company, Each can avail himself of the privilege in aid of litigation. Each can collect information for the use of his or the other's legal adviser.

The inspector and Mr Whale's approach depends on the proposition that whilst extraction may be appropriate development in the Green Belt, the necessary prior work of exploration and appraisal never can be, and that actual extraction may involve no harm to the Green Belt while exploration and appraisal always will. The former will not require or may not require the demonstration of very special circumstances, the latter always will.

I can well see that in such a case the public interest must be allowed to and prevail that it would be inappropriate to grant an injunction (though whether that should preclude any award of damages in lieu is a question which may need further consideration). The Court should be slow to acquiesce in the extinction of private rights without compensation as a result of administrative decisions which cannot be appealed and are difficult to challenge.