A CAMPAIGNER faced with a £30,000 legal bill after losing a battle with the Welsh Government over a cancer centre to be built on a nature area has had the costs overturned.
Cat Lewis, who has been a breast cancer patient, lives next to the Northern Meadows in Cardiff where a replacement for the nearby Velindre Cancer Centre is due to be built. Some work to prepare for construction has already started at the site which borders a nature reserve on the outskirts of the capital.
When her application for a judicial review of the Welsh Government’s decision to finance the development was rejected Lewis was told she would have to pay £30,328.50 towards the government and the Velindre University NHS Trust’s costs.
But that decision has now been overturned by the Administrative Court in Wales where Mr Justice Eyre ruled the environmental activist’s challenge was covered by the Aarhus Convention.
Instead Lewis, who brought the case with the help of a crowd funding campaign that raised £23,250, has had the costs she must pay capped at £5,000.
In response to the judgement Lewis said: “I brought this case, with the help of crowdfunding to defend the rights of nature and my local environment for future generations.
“It was a massive blow to be faced with this costs order, as well as seeing trees being cut down as work starts on the Meadows. I hope that this decision will give confidence to other campaigners to follow in my footsteps and challenge decisions which damage the environment. I am considering whether I can now continue my legal battle.”
The Aarhus Convention ensures people and non-governmental organisations have the right to participate in environmental decision making and access to justice in environmental cases.
The unsuccessful application for a judicial review had sought to argue that a new centre was based at the wrong location, away from the critical care centre at the University Hospital of Wales.
It also claimed the Welsh Government hadn’t taken account of its Future Generations Act – that requires decisions be taken with the long term impact in mind – and ministers had breached their duty to maintain and enhance biodiversity.
The Welsh Government, and the trust as interested party, had tried to argue Lewis’ case wasn’t covered by the convention as only one of her arguments related to the environment.
The government also tried to claim that the Save the Northern Meadows campaign group, rather than Lewis had brought the case.
In submissions the Welsh Government also sought to convince the judge that “significant media coverage” of the opposition to the development was likely to have led to increased support for the Save the Northern Meadows campaign.
Justice Eyre said this was speculation and in his judgement said the same coverage would also have alerted the public to why the centre was being proposed and that Lewis’ action had been unsuccessful.
The written judgement was handed down today and Lewis’ solicitors, Deighton Pierce Glynn, said; “Mr Justice Eyre rejected these arguments. He found that the court has to look at the nature of the claim itself rather than the decision being challenged.
“If the claim alleges a breach of a national law relating to the environment in good faith, as in this case, then it comes within the scope of the Aarhus Convention.
“He also found that if Aarhus protection applies to one part of the claim then it applies to the entirety of the claim and that it is not open to the court to find that the limit applies to some elements of a claim and not others.”
Solicitor Sue Willman the decision vindicated Lewis’ right to bring the challenge: “The judgment makes it clear that the Aarhus Convention should be broadly interpreted to provide access to environmental justice. Costs protection applies in a case like this with multiple legal arguments, even where the majority of the arguments are not environmental ones.”
- This article originally appeared on our sister site The National.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel