Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
What is the scope and purpose of the Aarhus Convention 1998 in the context of private nuisance claims? Dr Paul Stookes of Richard Buxton Solicitors, who represented the appellant in Austin v Miller Agent, comments on the Court of Appeal ruling
that private nuisance proceedings were capable of falling within the scope of the Convention.
Austin v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd  EWCA Civ 1012,  All ER (D) 199 (Jul)
The appellant sought to pursue a private nuisance action against the respondent, concerning the respondent's non-compliance with planning permission conditions. The judge refused the appellant a protective costs order (PCO) and she appealed. The Court
of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, art 9.3 (the Aarhus Convention) could apply to private
nuisance actions. However, having regard to the limited public benefit which the appellant's action would achieve, it did not fall within the scope of the Convention, art 9.3.
The underlying facts are that Mrs Austin has been trying to prevent continuing noise and dust deposition which she understands come from a large opencast coal mining operation close to her home in Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales. The problems have been carrying
on since 2008. Mrs Austin cannot afford the cost of legal proceedings and made a pre-action application to the High Court for costs protection in a proposed claim in private nuisance. The application included an argument that those proceedings would
be an environmental claim and that therefore they had to be 'fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive under Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention 1998'.
The High Court dismissed the application in August 2013 but granted permission to appeal on the basis that the matter was one of 'significant public importance'. The Court of Appeal agreed with Mrs Austin that private nuisance proceedings were capable
of falling within the scope of the Aarhus Convention but introduced what appears to be a novel and, possibly unlawful, restriction on the application of the Convention by requiring that there is a 'significant public enviro
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234