Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44

KEY POINTS

• Distinguishing between a meddlesome individual and someone with a valid concern depends on the specific situation. In some cases, a person bringing a legal action does not always need to prove a personal interest, especially when the challenged action has a broad impact on the general public.

• When determining if someone is a 'person aggrieved' to challenge under the 1984 Act, the legal and factual context matters.

  • In this case, it would be inconsistent with environmental law's purpose to demand that a person's private interests must always be affected. Environmental law assumes that the environment concerns everyone.

  • If an individual or organization has a genuine interest and sufficient knowledge about an environmental matter to raise public interest issues, they should be considered a 'person aggrieved.'

FACTS

• This appeal concerns a challenge to the validity of road construction schemes and orders in Scotland, particularly the "western peripheral route" (WPR) aimed at reducing traffic congestion in Aberdeen. The Scottish Ministers, local bodies, and private entities proposed and implemented these schemes under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

• The Appellant, who chairs Road Sense, an organization opposing the WPR, objected to the project. Public inquiries were held to assess environmental and technical aspects, but not the project's overall approval. The Scottish Parliament approved the schemes in March 2010.

• The Appellant challenged the project's validity in Scottish courts, citing EU and domestic legal grounds. The Inner House rejected these claims, stating that the Appellant lacked the necessary legal standing and that his interests were not substantially prejudiced.

• Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant argued that the Fastlink, a component of the project, was adopted without the required consultation under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. He also contended that the public inquiry should have assessed the necessity of the Fastlink based on common law principles of procedural fairness.

JUDGEMENT

• Appeal dismissed.

COMMENTARY

• This case contributes to the development of environmental law by emphasizing the significance of public interest and access to environmental justice, allowing individuals or organizations to challenge decisions that could harm the environment without needing to prove a personal, direct interest.

• This approach aligns with the broader goals of environmental protection and sustainability.