Three jurisdictions, three judgements: the increasing value of environmental litigation and judicial practice in strengthening the environmental rule of law

Abstract

Three recent judgments from Fiji, France and the United Kingdom provide a striking illustration of enlightened judicial application of the law to foster sustainable use of natural resources and help preserve the balance between humankind and the natural world. This article examines these three judgements and highlights their individual and collective importance. It also seeks to underscore the valuable contribution made by the judiciary in each matter, through careful analysis and clear findings, to holding governments and private parties to account for acts or omissions that negatively impact nature and, thereby, to strengthening the environmental rule of law.

Keywords:

• Environmental Law
• Environment
• Courts
• Environmental Rule of Law
• Litigation
• Environmental Litigation
• Paris Agreement
• Judiciary
• France
• Fiji
• United Kingdom

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Brian J. Preston, ‘Environmental Law and Populism: The End of Enlightened Environmental Law?’ (2019) 31 Journal of Environmental Law, 399.

2 Chief Judge, Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, Australia.

3 Preston (n 1).

4 Ibid.

5 Lon. L. Fuller and Kenneth I. Winston, ‘The Forms and Limits of Adjudication’ (1978) 92 Harvard Law Review, 353.

6 Civil appeal no. ABU 90 OF 2018. The full text of the judgement is not yet openly available online, but it should be published in the PacLII database in due course: www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJCA/2020

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Jugement correctionnel (intérêts civils) du 6 mars 2020, Cour d’Appel d’Aix-en-Provence, Tribunal Judiciaire de Marseille, N° affaire jointe 18330000441. The full text of the judgement is not yet openly available online, but it should be published here in due course: www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechJuriJudi.do

11 A ‘tribunal correctionel’ is a division of the ‘Tribunal de Grande Instance’ (often translated as High Court) that hears criminal matters for which sentences of imprisonment cannot exceed ten years (or 20 in case of a repeat offence).

12 Le Parc national des Calanques.

13 ‘[…] la réparation de l’atteinte écologique causée à l’écosystème des calanques’.

14 Cour de cassation, Chambre criminelle, 25 September 2012, n° de pourvoi 10-82.938.

15 This is the author's own translation. The original text is as follows : ‘Est réparable, dans les conditions prévues au présent titre, le préjudice écologique consistant en une atteinte non négligeable aux éléments ou aux fonctions des écosystèmes ou aux bénéfices collectifs tirés par l'homme de l'environnement’.

16 ‘[…] les solidarités à l’œuvre au sein d’un écosystème complexe’.

17 ‘[…] toute intervention humaine inconsidérée dans l’écosystème en cause [… qui] risquerait de perturber plus gravement encore les processus biologiques naturels’.

18 Jugement correctionnel (n 10).

19 Cour de cassation, Chambre criminelle, 25 September 2012, n° de pourvoi 10–82.938.

20 R. (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214. Judgement handed down on 27 February 2020 www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Heathrow-judgment-on-planning-issues-27-February-2020.pdf accessed 28 February 2020.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 ‘Planning Act 2008’ www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/29/section/5 accessed 12 March 2020.

28 R. (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport (n 20).

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 ‘Planning Act 2008’ www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/29/section/10 accessed 12 March 2020.

32 R. (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport (n 20).

33 Ibid.

34 R (on the application of Hurst) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007] UKHL 13

35 CREEDNZ Inc v Governor General [1981] 1 NZLR 172, 183.

36 R (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport (n 20).

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro on 14 June 1992 and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly on 22 December 1992.

41 R. (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport at n. 20, emphasis added.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 Ivano Alogna and Eleanor Clifford, ‘Climate Change Litigation: Comparative and International Perspectives’ (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 9 March 2020) www.biicl.org/publications/climate-change-litigation-comparative-and-international-perspectives accessed 9 March 2020.

45 Urgenda Foundation v. The Netherlands [2015] HAZA C/09/00456689 (24 June 2015); aff’d (9 October 2018) (District Court of the Hague, and The Hague Court of Appeal [on appeal]). https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2591 with an unofficial English translation here https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2610

46 Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7 www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5c59012ce4b02a5a800be47f#_Toc431202

47 Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others [2017] ZAGPPHC 58 www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2017/58.html

48 Preston (n 1).

49 Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164. It should, of course, be noted that Lord Denning's use of this language was in the entirely different context of negligent misstatement under English tort law.

50 Ibid.