1 year ago
1195
In a personal appeal, NFLA Secretary Richard Outram has called on members of the Government-appointed Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce not to recommend to Ministers that the rights of campaign groups to seek Judicial Review be curtailed.
The NRT established to look at the operation of Britain’s current regulatory and permitting regime within the nuclear sector, both civil and military, has recently published its Interim Report. The taskforce has declared that it is intent upon introducing ‘once-in-a-generation change’, but the NFLAs and other campaign bodies are convinced that this simply represents industry speak for wholesale deregulation with fears that standards in public safety and environmental protection will be sacrificed on the altar of business expediency and profit.
NGOs which are members of the Office for Nuclear Regulation NGO Forum – including the NFLAs – have submitted a joint response to a consultation which closed yesterday on the findings outlined in the NRT’s Interim Report.
Richard also submitted his own comments on one element of the Interim Report that most concerned him – a suggestion that the rights of campaign groups to seek Judicial Review be curtailed on the grounds that their applications were ‘vexatious’, increasing costs and causing delays to nuclear developers. This was a clear reference to recent actions concerning Sizewell C.
Richard said: “For a lay person’s group to contemplate, let alone mount a legal action in the High Court takes considerable courage and fortitude. It involves a vast expenditure of time and energy in support of the claim by a dedicated core group of members, and it involves significant expenditure, covered through donations from supporters via crowdfunding efforts.
“Even with expert legal advice, there is no certainty as to the outcome and such groups can never hope to match the big pockets of a state-sponsored nuclear developer.
“Such an action would be embarked upon only after seeking specialist legal advice, and after much discussion and taking a collective decision to proceed. It would not be embarked on lightly or ill-advisedly, and, given the costs, never for frivolous or vexatious purposes.”
Stop Sizewell C and Together against Sizewell C have challenged the Government and developer over access to fresh water and the impact of sea defences on the local ecosystem.
Richard urges the taskforce not to recommend to Ministers any changes in the ability of campaigners to access justice:
“Recourse to seek Judicial Review to challenge Ministers and businesses when they may be acting contrary to law is the fundamental right of all citizens in any true democracy. Any erosion of the right of one litigant to do so curtails that same right for the rest of us.
“We should all continue to have the right to expect our day in Court.”
Ends://..For more information please email NFLA Secretary Richard Outram at richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
The letter sent by the NFLA Secretary to the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce 7 Sept 2025
Comments on Interim Report, Question 1b. ‘Vexatious’ judicial reviews.
Dear NRT members,
I am the Secretary of the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities, a body first established in 1981 to represent the collective view of local authorities opposed to civil nuclear power and instead committed to achieving an energy forum for the nations of the British Isles based upon renewables.
As Secretary of the NFLAs, I represent an NGO which is a member organisation of the ONR – NGO Forum. As such, I fully support the submission made by Peter Burt on behalf of the NGO members of that Forum in response to the request made by the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce for comments on the Interim Report.
However, I do wish to add some additional personal points in opposition to any proposal to limit access to Judicial Review and to condemn the pejorative use of the word ‘vexatious’ in Question 1b of the report where you ask:
b. What measures could prevent vexatious judicial reviews from driving disproportionate approaches that increase costs and delay?
This is clearly directed at members of the public who have organised themselves into the campaign groups Stop Sizewell C and Together against Sizewell C to assert their lawful right to seek Judicial Review through the Courts to challenge the imposition of a new Gigawatt nuclear plant upon their community, a project which they neither sought nor want.
For a lay person’s group to contemplate, let alone mount a legal action in the High Court takes considerable courage and fortitude. It involves a vast expenditure of time and energy in support of the claim by a dedicated core group of members, most of whom will have other work, study, family and care commitments and it involves significant expenditure, covered through donations from supporters via crowdfunding efforts. Even with expert legal advice, there is no certainty as to the outcome and such groups can never hope to match the big pockets of a state-sponsored nuclear developer.
I would venture that such an action would be embarked upon only after seeking specialist legal advice and engaging in a significant period of group discussion, before taking a collective decision to proceed. It would not be embarked on lightly or ill-advisedly, and, given the costs, never for frivolous or vexatious purposes.
Furthermore, to seek Judicial Review, a litigant needs permission from the court to proceed. In the case of the application made for Judicial Review by Together against Sizewell C concerning the availability of potable water, this was considered before several High Court judges. Initially dismissed by Lord Justice Kerr in October 2022, who concluded that ‘none of the (seven) grounds was arguable with a real prospect of success’, this was appealed before Lord Justice Holgate in June 2023, who arrived at a similar conclusion. TASC then sought permission to appeal this decision on five of those grounds. Lord Justice Coulson in September 2023 granted permission on two of these. A hearing was held in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) over two days in November 2023 before Sir Keith Lindbolm, Senior President of Tribunals, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Lewis to consider the merits of the case. Although ultimately the case was found against them, it is clear from the indulgence shown by their Lordships that TASC’s case was regardless neither as frivolous nor vexatious.
In law, a ‘vexacious’ case is defined as a legal action mounted without sufficient grounds or any legal basis, often with the primary purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, harassment or expense to the other party.
A ‘vexatious’ appellant is someone who habitually files such baseless lawsuits, and courts can issue orders, known as vexatious litigant orders or Civil Restraint Orders (CROs), requiring litigants to seek court permission before they can start new lawsuits. Lawyers supporting ‘vexatious’ litigants can face professional sanction.
There are therefore already established ‘measures’ to restrict ‘vexatious’ claims and the lawyers who represent them.
In relation to the legal cases mounted over Sizewell C, campaigners challenged the availability of potable water and the potential impact of future flood defences on the environment.
It is not ‘vexatious’ for human beings to assert their right to access sufficient fresh water to meet their future needs, especially where they are living in a county – Suffolk – which is increasingly suffering from water stress.
Campaigners are also rightly concerned about the destruction of flora and fauna in the locality in which they live. Over twenty thousand trees were felled in an unconscionable ‘Ecocide’ by contractors carrying out site clearance work at Sizewell C even prior to the sign-off of the Final Investment Decision.
It is not ‘vexatious’ to seek to use legal remedies to arrest further egregious ecological damage attributable by this mega project.
It is down to the developer to robustly defend itself, and, if confident it can do so, there is no need for them to halt work, so there is no hiatus unless a Court order forces a temporary cessation.
As the collective response of the NGOs in the ONR NGO-Forum states legal action over Sizewell C was a last resort taken:
‘a consequence of the developer submitting immature proposals for approval which did not adequately address important issues such as sea defences and water supply. Feedback from local residents about flaws and gaps in the proposals were ignored by the developer, and warnings from the Planning Inspectorate that the case for granting consent for the project was “not made out” were not heeded by the Secretary of State. The case was taken to court because the developer and government were not seen to have followed proper process and because decision-making was untransparent and lacked legitimacy.’
The NGOs make a recommendation as to the proper relationship:
‘If developers and government act in an open and principled way during the approval process then not only will there be no legal grounds for challenge, but local citizens will have less cause to worry about the development or want to bring a challenge.’
I am gravely concerned that the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce wrongly presupposes that Judicial Reviews are only sought by campaigners on vexatious grounds, that these impose unreasonable costs and delays on developers, and that there are no existing ‘checks and balances’ on litigants seeking a Judicial Review.
At a time when civil rights are being eroded, when for example a peaceful demonstrator can be arrested and jailed as a ‘terrorist’ for simply wearing a t-shirt, I am fearful that the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce will recommend to government a further curtailment of the rights of citizens to seek Judicial Review in opposition to a nuclear project and that our current Ministers, being ever eager to accommodate the demands of the industry, will be keen to do so.
I earnestly urge you not to take this path. Recourse to seek Judicial Review to challenge Ministers and businesses when they may be acting contrary to law is the fundamental right of all citizens in any true democracy. Any erosion of the right of one litigant to do so curtails that same right for the rest of us.
We should all continue to have the right to expect our day in Court.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Outram,
Secretary, UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities
