Secretary Of State For Transport Research Articles

Opportunity for New Relief in Judicial Review Proceedings beyond R. (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214: Another Attempt to Square the Circle?

Opportunity for New Relief in Judicial Review Proceedings beyond R. (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214: Another Attempt to Square the Circle?

R (Plan B Earth) v. Secretary of State for Transport

535Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Treaty not incorporated into municipal law — Whether minister required to take treaty into account — Paris Agreement on Climate Change, 2015 — Decision to designate third runway at Heathrow Airport — Airports National Policy Statement — Planning Act 2008 — Directive 2001/42/EC — Paris Agreement not taken into account — Whether Secretary of State obliged to take Paris Agreement into account — Whether taking Paris Agreement into account would give effect to unincorporated international agreement in domestic lawEnvironment — Treaties — Climate change — Greenhouse gases — Paris Agreement, 2015 — Whether failure to take Paris Agreement into account vitiating decision to designate third runway — Whether Directive 2001/42/EC requiring unincorporated international agreements to be taken into account — The law of England

Enabling equality of employment with insulin treated diabetes in safety‐critical occupations

Enabling equality of employment with insulin treated diabetes in safety‐critical occupations

Plan B Earth v Secretary of State for Transport: Airport Expansion, the Paris Agreement and the Planning Act 2008

Abstract This case analysis considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Plan B Earth and ors) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214, which followed the High Court challenge to the Secretary of State’s designation of the UK Airports National Policy Statement. The Court of Appeal found that the Secretary of State’s failure to take into account the UK’s commitment to the Paris Agreement when carrying out his duties under the Planning Act 2008 was unlawful. While permission to appeal this decision has been granted, it remains a notable judgment. The Plan B Earth case confirms the interaction between the UK’s climate change commitments and the statutory framework of the UK’s planning system. It also highlights the complexity of the Court’s institutional role in the context of environmental problems. Analysing the implications of this decision through a policymaking lens risks overlooking the role of public law principles that shaped the Court’s reasoning, defining the relationship between the Paris Agreement and the Planning Act.

The ‘Heathrow’ Case: Polycentricity, Legislation, and the Standard of Review

AbstractThe recent Court of Appeal decision in the ‘Heathrow’ case, Plan B Earth v Secretary of State for Transport is an illustration of the challenges of reviewing polycentric and expert decision‐making. The issues raised in the case concerning the Planning Act 2008 are an illustration of a court's expository role in such contexts. The Court tackled directly a series of interpretive questions concerning the Planning Act 2008's obligations regarding the consideration of climate change. The Habitats and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive issues raised in the appeal, in contrast, were presented with the question of the intensity of review foregrounded in legal argument. The Court therefore sought to articulate the ‘standard of review’ and to apply it to the government's decisions. This way of framing the issue unfortunately sidelined the courts’ expository role in relation to intepreting the Habitats and SEA Directives, leaving key provisions under‐analysed.

Climate change and nationally significant infrastructure projects: R (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport

In R ( on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214, [2020] 2 WLUK 372, the Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully by failing to take into account the UK’s commitments in the 2015 Paris Agreement when he decided to designate a policy formulated to enable the construction of a third runway at Heathrow airport as a ‘national policy statement’ under the Planning Act 2008. An appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. The outcome of that appeal should help to clarify the legal significance of the Paris Agreement and will have significant implications both for expansion at Heathrow airport, for other major infrastructure projects and for other planning and environmental litigation.

Defending Just Culture in Air Accident Investigations: The Decision of the English High Court in British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor V. Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

Defending Just Culture in Air Accident Investigations: The Decision of the English High Court in <i>British Broadcasting Corporation &amp; Anor V. Secretary of State for Transport &amp; Anor</i>

Motor Vehicle Insurance Law: Ignoring the Lessons from King Rex

Following a review in 2013, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) established the Uninsured Drivers Agreement (UDA) 2015. The aim was to implement aspects of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives (MVID). The UDA 2015 contained numerous errors in its drafting and led to widespread criticism due to its incompatibility with EU law and common law principles. In January 2017 the MIB provided its Supplementary UDA. If its aim was to remedy these problems we argue that it has substantially failed. Further, the updated Agreement continues the uncertainty of the law in this area and, with reference to Fuller’s ‘Eight Ways to Fail to Make Law’, we present an argument that the Secretary of State for Transport should again redraft the UDA 2015 and the 2017 Supplement to provide legal certainty, remove the inconsistencies between national and EU law, and provide the protection to which third-party victims of uninsured drivers are entitled under EU law.

Regina (Buckinghamshire County Council and others) v. Secretary of State for Transport

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has considered the requirements of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment in the context of a high speed rail scheme to be introduced by parliamentary procedure. The case is important for its detailed analysis of how parliamentary processes relate to the requirements of European Union environmental law. The Supreme Court has also made revealing comments about its view of the proper relationship between the domestic and European legal order.

HS2: The First Spike: R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport; R (Heathrow Hub Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport; and R (Hillingdon LBC &amp; Others) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3

The decision of the UK Supreme Court in the HS2 appeal considers some of the leading decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU on both the SEA and EIA Directives. In a number of important respects, the Supreme Court finds that the CJEU’s decisions are unsatisfactory, at least from the point of view of a domestic supreme court which is called on to apply those decisions within the domestic constitutional order. Although the challengers to the HS2 scheme lost the appeal on both the SEA and EIA grounds, the Supreme Court has used the case to make some far-reaching observations on the relationship between EU law and UK constitutional law. These observations make the HS2 decision a landmark in modern British constitutional law.

Going under the Devil's Punch Bowl: the story of the A3 Hindhead tunnel, UK

The £371 million A3 Hindhead tunnel road scheme in Surrey, England was opened to traffic in July 2011, ending over half a century of congestion in a highly prized and protected natural environment. It consists of a 6·4 km dual two-lane bypass of Hindhead, including a 1·8 km long twin-bore tunnel under Hindhead Commons and the Devil's Punch Bowl, part of the Surrey Hills designated area of outstanding natural beauty. The scheme was delivered by the Highways Agency on behalf of the secretary of state for transport. This paper provides an overview of how, following 22 years in gestation, this challenging project was delivered almost flawlessly through intelligent planning, collaborative working and comprehensive engagement of the local community.

Regina (on the application of Kibris Türk Hava Yollari and CTA Holidays Limited) v. Secretary of State for Transport (Republic of Cyprus, interested party)

683Recognition — States — Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (“TRNC”) — Lack of recognition by United Kingdom — Effects of non-recognition — Civil aviation — Scheduled and charter flights — Applications for operating permits for flights between UK and TRNC — Refusal of permits — Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 — Obligations of State parties — Duty of UK government to respect rights of Republic of Cyprus under Chicago Convention — Implied recognition — Denial of permits avoiding indirect affirmation of TRNC's sovereignty over territory of northern Cyprus — Exceptions to general principle of non-recognition — Ability to recognise validity of acts by TRNC regulating day-to-day activities and private rights of individuals — Whether civil aviation falling within exceptions — Whether grant of operating permits amounting to breach of obligations under international or domestic lawTreaties — Interpretation — Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 — Sovereignty — Meaning of “sovereignty” under Chicago Convention — Whether “territorial sovereignty” requiring effective control over entire territory — Principle of effectiveness — Performance of treaty rights and obligations — Impossibility of performance — Conditions for suspension of operation of treaty — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 61(1) — Whether rights under treaty suspended — Whether entitlement to exercise rights under treaty suspended — Whether loss of effective control over territory resulting in suspension of treaty rights and obligations in respect of territory — The law of England

Arlene Carswell (Personal Representative of James Carswell Deceased) v (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) Motor Insurers' Bureau

Arlene Carswell (Personal Representative of James Carswell Deceased) v (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) Motor Insurers' Bureau

The Queen (on the Application of the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko) and Others) v. Secretary of State for Transport

89Sea — Maritime zones — High seas — Exclusive economic zone — Territorial sea — Rights of coastal State and flag States — Pollution — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — International Convention on Maritime Pollution, 1973 and Protocol (MARPOL 73/78) — Whether coastal State entitled to impose standards higher than those of MARPOL 73/78 on ships of other flag States — Powers of European CommunityTreaties — Parties — Effect of treaties upon non-parties — European Community — Treaties concluded by European Community — Treaties to which European Community not a party but which are binding on all Member States — Effect in Community lawTreaties — Interpretation — Principles of interpretation — Object and purpose of the treaty — Treaty as aid to interpretation of national lawRelationship of international law and municipal law — European Community law — Treaties concluded by Community — Whether part of Community legal order — Whether possessing primacy over Community legislation — Treaties binding Member States but not the Community — Whether validity of Community legislation can be assessed in light of treaty — Whether treaty confers rights upon individuals — Whether treaty precise and unconditionalInternational organizations — European Community — Nature of Community as a subject of international law — Whether Community obliged to act in accordance with international law — Whether Community’s powers to legislate limited by international treaty obligations of the Member States — The law of the European Community

(1) Certain Bus Operating Companies in the Stagecoach Group (2) Certain Bus Operating Companies in the Go-Ahead Group (3) Certain Concession Authorities v Secretary of State for Transport&lt;BR&gt; Certain Travel Concession Authorities (Interested Parties)

(1) Certain Bus Operating Companies in the Stagecoach Group (2) Certain Bus Operating Companies in the Go-Ahead Group (3) Certain Concession Authorities v Secretary of State for Transport&lt;BR&gt; Certain Travel Concession Authorities (Interested Parties)

Case C-308/06, The Queen on the application of Intertanko and Others v Secretary of State for Transport, judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2008

Case C-308/06, <i>The Queen on the application of Intertanko and Others v Secretary of State for Transport</i>, judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2008

International Association of lndependent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, Lloyd’s Register and International Salvage Union v. Secretary of State for Transport

International Association of lndependent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, Lloyd’s Register and International Salvage Union v. Secretary of State for Transport

Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport

Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport

Protecting Bird Habitat of European Importance — The View from Basses Corbières

This paper describes the operation of the habitat protection provisions of the EEC Birds Directive of 1979 in the light of changes made by the Habitats Directive of 1992, by reference to the case law of the European Court of Justice and especially the decisions of Commission v Spain (‘ Santoña Marshes’) in 1993 and Commission v France (‘ Basses Corbières’) in 2000. The effect of the Basses Corbières decision was first considered by a United Kingdom court in R (Bown) v Secretary of State for Transport, decided by Collins J at first instance on 26 March 2003 and by the Court of Appeal on 31 July 2003. The author reviews the relevant aspects of these two decisions, and concludes that, although the actual result in the case may well be correct, the Court of Appeal did not accurately identify and address the issues which it raised. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is inconsistent in important respects with the European cases, and therefore a potentially misleading authority for those, whether courts, ministers or inspectors, who have to make decisions about the status and protection of areas which, it is contended, should have been, but have not been, included by government in a classified special protection area under the Birds Directive.

The Sad State of British Railways

This article reviews the rise and fall of Railtrack, in existence between 1992 and 2002. The railway infrastructure company, Railtrack, was first envisaged by the Conservative government of British prime minister John Major in July 1992 and became law in November 1993. The demise of Railtrack came in two stages: first, Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Transport, announced to the Commons in October 2001 that he had put Railtrack into administration, to be replaced by a not-for-profit trust; and second, in October 2002, the not-for-profit organization, called Network Rail, owning for the government most of the permanent way, signals, and stations of the railway system, was created. The author concludes that the attempt to privatize railway services by splitting the ownership of the track and infrastructure from train operations has been a complete failure. It led to an increase in bureaucracy, confusion on the part of both management and workers as to who was in charge of what, and a sharp decline of train service punctuality on many routes. The author maintains that the whole railway system should be placed under public ownership and control.