Alternative A5 Alliance’s Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Stephens J,Horner J |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] NIQB 97 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Date | 03 December 2012 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2012] NIQB 97
Ref:
HOR8665
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
03/12/12
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
QUEEN’S BENCH (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
The Alternative A5 Alliance’s Application [2012] NIQB 97
________
HORNER J
[1] The Alternative A5 Alliance has brought what is in effect a statutory judicial
review of the proposed 85 kilometre A5 western transport corridor being built
because, inter alia, they claim the Department has breached their EU rights in
general and the EIA Directive in particular. The Alliance claims that the
requirements of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention which had been incorporated
originally in Article 10A now Article 11 of the EIA Directive 2011/92/EU are directly
engaged.
[2] The Alliance seeks a Protective Costs Order (“PCO”) of £5,000. The
Department of Regional Development (“DRD”) object not to the order but to the
amount and suggest £50,000. They also seek a cap on the costs which would be
recoverable by them should the Alliance succeed in the sum of £30,000. The Alliance
resists this and point out that the costs which they can recover are limited in any
event because their legal team is working at discounted commercial rates.
[3] First of all, I want to commend the industry of counsel. I have had the benefit
of two very detailed skeleton arguments and of being referred to all the relevant case
law, both in UK and Europe and also to the relevant legislation. I want to make it
clear that although I do not deal specifically with every authority to which I have
been referred, I have taken them all into account. In particular I found considerable
assistance from two sources. The first was the decision of the Lord Chief Justice in
the decision of re Ciara Thompson 2010 NIQB 38 and the second the opinion of the
Advocate General Kokott in the referral by the Supreme Court in Edwards v
Environment Agency 2011 (1WLR 79). It was common case that the date for the
decision of the ECJ was unknown. It might be a matter of weeks or a matter of
months. The opinion of the Advocate General given on 18 October 2012 is only
advisory and does not bind the court. However, I do consider her reasoning to be
persuasive. She said at paragraph 49:
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
River Faughan Anglers Limited’s Application
... ... [74] Regulation 44(1) (which reflects Article 6.4 of the Directive) provides: “(1) If it is satisfied that, there being no alternative solutions, the plan or project must be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest which, subject to paragraph (2), may be of a ... ...
-
Petition By The John Muir Trust For Judicial Review Of A Decision Of The Scottish Ministers Dated 6th June, 2014 To Grant Consent Under Section 36 Of The Electricity Act 1989 To Scottish & Southern Energy Renewables For The Erection Of 67 Wind Turbines At Stronelairg, Garrogie Estate, Whitebridge, Fort Augustus Together With Deemed Planning Permission Under Section 57(2) Of The Town And Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997
...J in Blewett and Rochdale have been followed most recently in Alternative A5 Alliance’s Application for Judicial Review [2013] NIQB 30, [2014] NI 96 (Alternative A5) and R (on the application of Evans) v Basingstoke and Deane BC [2013] EWHC 899 (Admin) (Evans). Separately, the correct appro......
-
Harten v an Bord Pleanála
... ... The proposed development the subject of the application for planning permission (Planning Reg. No. 12/209) comprised: (1) the change of ... the end product and (iii) lack of information provided in relation to consideration of alternative sites. The development would thus be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of ... was considered and followed in the High Court of Northern Ireland in Alternative A5 Alliances Application for Judicial Review [2013] NIQB 30 , and, of course, in this case. Thus, there are ... ...
-
People over Winds 7 anor v Coillte Teoranta
... ... be considered at the screening stage lie centre-stage in terms of the resolution of the application at hand. II. Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (i) Some General Principles ... decision of the Northern Ireland High Court, another court of the United Kingdom, in Alternative A5 Alliance's Application for Judicial Review [2013] NIQB 30 ) ... 12 ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results