The High Court has refused permission for a judicial review of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ decision to treat Hereford cattle as a single breed for support payments, ruling that the challenge was a merits review disguised as a legality issue. In Hall v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2026] EWHC 2623 (Admin), Deputy High Court Judge Clare Padley also denied an extension of time for the claim but confirmed it qualified as an Aarhus Convention case.
Procedural and Timing Issues
The claimant, who breeds cattle he identifies as Hereford (Original Population), contends these animals represent a distinct breed separate from North American-derived Herefords. On 2 June 2025, Defra replaced its Native Breeds at Risk list with a Native Breeds Support List after consulting the UK Genetics for Livestock and Equines Committee. The new list consolidated original populations into their primary breed categories, reclassifying Hereford as not at risk and rendering the claimant’s sub-population ineligible for payments under the Agriculture Act 2020. He also sought to compel enforcement action against the Hereford Cattle Society, which opposed his position.
The claim was filed on 13 October 2025, outside the three month limit in CPR 54.5. The claimant argued the clock started after later correspondence provided reasons for the decision. However, the judge determined the subsequent letters did not constitute fresh decisions, making 2 September 2025 the expiration date. Applying the Maharaj test, she found no justification for extending the deadline, citing the claimant’s knowledge of the decision by 5 August, professional legal advice, and a pre-action letter framed as challenging the August response rather than the June decision. The Macrae v Herefordshire Council precedent did not apply because the claimant was not kept in the dark about the decision’s basis.
Substance of the Challenge
Although not required, the judge examined the merits. Citing R (Mott) v Environment Agency, she emphasized courts should rarely find expert decisions perverse. Section 1(1)(g) of the 2020 Act conferred a broad, discretionary policy power that was not tied to the breed definition in the Animal Breeding Regulation. The court found it unsustainable to argue that following the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and committee advice favoring a whole-breed approach was irrational, even though 54% of consultation responses opposed merging original populations. Genetic distinctions between sub-populations might exist, but the committee had evaluated much of the claimant’s evidence.
Related Post: Patent Barrister Michael Tappin Named High Court Judge
The judge noted that adopting the claimant’s position would probably have removed more than 90% of UK Hereford cattle from the society’s remit. She characterized the challenge as purely substantive, a view reinforced when the claimant’s counsel abandoned the request for a declaration on breed categorization during proceedings. The enforcement challenge failed for identical procedural reasons. Article 47 applies where non-compliance is established, and the alleged non-compliance rested on the same contested distinction between breeds and sub-populations. The judge identified the core dispute as the society’s refusal to engage with the claimant’s arguments, a matter outside judicial review scope.
Costs and Legal Framework
On costs protection, the judge found that the claim fell within Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. The 2020 Act and 2005 Environmental Stewardship Regulations establish national environmental law, distinguishing it from R (Global Feedback) v HM Treasury, where environmental links were marginal. The Court of Appeal’s decision in that case is pending Supreme Court review. Neither the defendant nor the society had made a compliant application to vary the costs limits under CPR 46.27(5), so the standard limits applied.
The claimant’s Aarhus costs of £7,111.67 offset liabilities for permission and time extension, with the £5,000 cap divided equally, requiring the claimant to pay £2,500 to each defendant and the society. This ruling reflects a broader trend in UK administrative law where courts scrutinize whether challenges target legal errors or policy disagreements. Similar cases involving agricultural support schemes have previously hinged on demonstrating procedural impropriety rather than substantive policy flaws.
